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

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

[ 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 s/it must be withdrawn from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 service/it MUST be withdrawn from service/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    NLRI was previously advertised to that peer, it MUST BE withdrawn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    withdrawn from service (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