Hi Acee, On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 8:18 PM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 for your suggestion. "ipv6-addr-res" is good. We will use it as the prefix. Regards, Fan > > 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
