A YANG Data Model for IP Management
RFC 7277
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) Yes
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Comment
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
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 steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for quickly responding to my DISCUSS.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
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 steering group member) No Objection