Re: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Pascal,

> On Jun 11, 2023, at 2:04 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Whao, Brian. I do like it as well.
> 
> The only little thing is closeness with Secure ND.

RFC3971 uses the term SEND, the title of that RFC is "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)” so I don’t think it’s a conflict.

Bob






> 
> All the best,
> 
> Pascal
> 
>> Le 11 juin 2023 à 07:14, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>> 
>> On 09-Jun-23 20:03, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>> Dear all:
>>> I republished applying the below.
>>> Since WiND (RFC 8505, 8928, 8929, more coming with xcast and prefix registration) are part of ND I might have created inconsistencies in the process. Please let me know if the reader can get confused.
>>> And then, I’m still after a way to call things with the WiND extensions.
>>> 1. Do we keep the term WiND?
>> 
>> It's nice, but it embeds "Wireless" and that sounds like an unintended restriction.
>> 
>>> 2)   If not, what else?
>>> a) ND for NBMA?
>>> b) Stateful ND?
>>> c) ND registration?
>>> d) other?
>>> Suggestions welcome,
>> 
>> Firstly, let me say that "SGP" seems to me the most important acronym and concept in the model. We've really needed that ever since "NBMA" was coined.
>> 
>> So I quite like "SND" but interpreted as "Subnet Neighbor Discovery".
>> 
>>  Brian
>> 
>>> Pascal
>>> *From:* ipv6 <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Bob Hinden
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:53 PM
>>> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=[e-mail]>
>>> *Cc:* Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=[e-mail]>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless
>>> Pascal,
>>>> Also, please replace "ND classic" with "Neighbor Discovery" everywhere. There is no such thing as "ND classic". There  is only ND.
>>>   There’s RFC 4861-4862 on the one hand and RFC 6775-8505 on the other. They are all ND. This document needs a term that points on the former group, and one that points of the registration extensions. So the document defines ND-Classic for the purpose of naming the former. The alternate would be to change ND classic to RFC 4861-RFC 4862 throughout. What’s best for the reader?
>>> My personal view is that it would better to say “Neighbor Discovery” to describe base protocol (RFC 4861-4862) and find a different term for extensions that have been done for other environments.   Saying “ND Classic” is a bit pejorative.
>>> Bob
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------