HI Fan, > On Feb 17, 2025, at 1:54 AM, Fan Zhang <fanzhang.chinatele...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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' ?
That is good and it doesn't matter that it is somewhat long. What would the prefix be - "ietf-ipv6-addr-res"? Note - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/res#dictionary-entry-3 Thanks, Acee > > 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
