I don’t support adoption of the draft. The YANG module in the draft only contains a small subnet of the ND functionality as specified in RFC 4861 (let alone any of the implemented and deployed follow-on drafts, e.g., RFC 6496).
Why would we adopt an ietf-nd that doesn’t begin to do the job? Thanks, Acee > On Feb 11, 2025, at 01:34, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > This email begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft: > YANG Data Model for IPv6 Address > Resolutionhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-rtgwg-ipv6-address-resolution-yang/ > > <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-rtgwg-ipv6-address-resolution-yang/> > Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by Feb > 25th, 2025. > > Authors and contributors, please respond to the list indicating whether you > are aware of any IPR that applies to the draft. > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
