Hi Acee, I agree that 'ietf-nd' does not seem appropriate for this YANG model and should be changed. However, 'ietf-nd-arp' could be confusing since ARP is for IPv4. How about 'ietf-ipv6-address-resolution' ?
Thanks, Fan On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:05 PM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Fan, > > Ok - maybe the YANG module should then have a more specific name than simply > ietf-nd? Maybe ietf-nd-arp? With that change, I’ll withdraw my objection. Of > course, other opinions are welcome. > > Note that although I was a co-author of RFC 8349, I didn’t make the > decision to only do ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements in RFC 8022. > > Thanks, > Acee > > On Feb 14, 2025, at 06:30, Fan Zhang <fanzhang.chinatele...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Acee, > > Thanks for your review and suggestions. > > This draft was first written as correspondence to > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-arp-yang-model/ to cover > the address resolution for IPv6. And, we also find that the features of > router and prefix discovery and stateless address autoconfiguration have been > defined in "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements" [RFC 8349] and "ietf-ip" [RFC > 8344]. Thus, we decided to focus on the address resolution based on IPv6 ND. > > Based on your suggestions, I updated the draft with new content, adding the > parameters for Redirect messages, Secure ND, and Secure Proxy ND. > > I attached the diff highlighting all updates. Hope these address your concern. > > Regards, > Fan > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 7:41 PM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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/ >> >> 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 > > <draft-zhang-rtgwg-ipv6-address-resolution-yang-02.diff.html> > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
