Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33: (with COMMENT)

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 30 July 2019 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75732120108; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IM2aQpv7xFRU; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27F4312004D; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1hsZ61-0002wQ-Ll; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:51:45 +0000
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:51:44 -0700
Message-ID: <m2zhkvw8in.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "\"Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker\"" <noreply@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, jie.dong@huawei.com, jgs@juniper.net, idr@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxccHKqaXeGKO1sD9jAiEM7McT9_+VUx4G_nqt_2TX3GA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <156449387998.2643.18137174091685834097.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m27e7zxpv1.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAMMESsxccHKqaXeGKO1sD9jAiEM7McT9_+VUx4G_nqt_2TX3GA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.2 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZzqzcyA54LgJ1Ow65exnyAsbC7U>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:51:55 -0000

[ to continue down a rather small and twisty rathole which only leads to
  velveta ]
  
>> 3) sec 4:>> s/then it must NOT be sent to the neighbor/then it MUST
>> NOT be sent to the neighbor/and > s/it must be withdrawn from
>> service/it MUST be withdrawn from service/
> i have no problem with this change. does someone want to make an
> argument that 4271 being normative obviates normative language here?
> Yes.  These changes are not needed precisely because of rfc4271.

btw, i do not entirely buy this

if the draft was phrased

    As specified in <xref target="RFC4271"/>, Section 9.2, if the
    message is still too big, then it MUST NOT be sent to the neighbor.
    Additionally, per <xref target="RFC4271"/>, Section 9.1.3, if the
    NLRI was previously advertised to that peer, it MUST BE withdrawn
    from service.

i.e. normative language might be used because one is directly referring
the same in 4271.

if you buy that, then

    If the message is still too big, then it MUST NOT be sent to the
    neighbor (<xref target="RFC4271"/>, Section 9.2).  Additionally, if
    the NLRI was previously advertised to that peer, it MUST be
    withdrawn from service (<xref target="RFC4271"/>, Section 9.1.3).

is just an english, well american, reconstruction of the same.

but i really do not care much.  so -34 is currently non-normative until
someone tells me otherwise.

randy