[Sidrops] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-slurm-02.txt

[Koen van Hove <[e-mail]>]

Hi Job,

Excellent, I will take the discussion to GitHub: 
https://github.com/job/draft-sidrops-aspa-slurm/pull/2

Like I said before: I don't think this is a major point of contention, 
but it might be something that is worth considering now rather than 
regretting not thinking about it later.

Cordially,
Koen

On 29-04-2025 11:01, Job Snijders wrote:
> Dear Koen,
>
> Apologies for getting back to you so late
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 05:45:55PM +0100, Koen van Hove wrote:
>> During the implementation of this draft, I noticed that it being
>> called "asid" rather than "asn". This might cause confusion for
>> operators. Is there a specific reason for deviating from the naming
>> convention from rfc8416, and if not, is it worth aligning the
>> terminology here and renaming "asid" to "asn"?
>>
>> I believe being consistent in the naming would be nice.
> There is no 'asid' field, did you mean the 'customerAsid' field?
>
> The field's name ('customerAsid') was intended to align with the ASPA
> eContent profile (draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile section 3).
>
> You note that in ROAs -> SLURM context the equivalent field was named
> 'asn' (instead of 'asid').
>
> Another question: Is 'providerSet' the best possible name? Or should it
> maybe just be 'providers'?
>
> Please feel free to file a pull request on to show what exactly you'd
> propose: https://github.com/job/draft-sidrops-aspa-slurm I'm open to
> picking changing field names and it's not too late to change names.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>