A YANG Data Model for IP Management
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-14
Yes
(Benoît Claise)
(Joel Jaeggli)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Barry Leiba)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -13)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -13)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-04-03)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Comment
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-03-27 for -13)
Unknown
We settled on this ...
OLD:
enum link-layer {
description
"Indicates an address created by IPv6 stateless
auto-configuration.";
}
enum random {
description
"Indicates an address chosen by the system at
random, e.g., an IPv4 address within 169.254/16, or an
RFC 4941 privacy address.";
}
NEW:
enum link-layer {
description
"Indicates an address created by IPv6 stateless
auto-configuration that embeds a link-layer address in its interface identifier.";
}
enum random {
description
"Indicates an address chosen by the system at
random, e.g., an IPv4 address within 169.254/16, an
RFC 4941 temporary address, or a semantically opaque address [I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses].";
}
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-03-24 for -13)
Unknown
Thanks for quickly responding to my DISCUSS.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-03-21 for -13)
Unknown
Security Considerations section for both Netmod drafts: Add a RECOMMEND use of SSH in addition to the MTI to prevent MITM or monitoring attacks (pervasive or otherwise).
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-03-27 for -13)
Unknown
This used to be a discuss, now a comment based on Martin Bjorklund's mail... "Should CGAs be mentioned in the model? Right now they are not (or I missed it:-) Only reason to ask is just in case some less common option like that isn't supported here and where that could in future become a barrier to adoption. I'm guessing this is ok and CGA handling is part of "temporary" address handling probably. Is that right? If so, I'm not clear how various different forms of temporary address might be handled nor why its ok to not represent that here." Martin says that this doesn't cover SEND and so neither does it include CGAs. I think it'd be good to clarity which kind(s) of temporary addresses are/are-not covered by this and/or which kind(s) would call for extensions to this data model.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown