A YANG Data Model for IP Management
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-14

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.

(Benoît Claise) Yes

(Joel Jaeggli) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

Alissa Cooper (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-03-27 for -13)
No email
send info
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].";
        }

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-04-03)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Comment

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-03-27 for -13)
No email
send info
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.

(Brian Haberman) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-03-24 for -13)
No email
send info
Thanks for quickly responding to my DISCUSS.

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2014-03-21 for -13)
No email
send info
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).

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection