2019/02/25 updates 1.remove global-static-entries and arp-probe nodes in the arp model 2.update the description text of gratuitous-arp and add references of rfc related

modification includes: 1.proxy arp extension

2. 09/01/2018 Tom Petch

• YANG module copyright is 2016 which will get fixed but makes me notice ....

• Security Considerations is not the current template; should have Normative References to SSH and TLS

• s5.1 has draft [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis]). which is now an RFC

• IANA Considerations references RFC7950. As I learnt lately, RFC6020 is better here as all RFC7950 does is point you to RFC6020

"MAC address in the format of H-H-H, in which H is a hexadecimal number of 1 to 4 bits.";

If H has a maximum of 4 bits, then you have a 12 bit address, not quite the MAC I see these days! I wonder if it is better to leave this out and let readers refer to RFC6991.

version1 has addressed the following comments：

IETF draft for ARP YANG model

Comments of Tom Petch 1.08/02/2018 Another YANG I-D from the Routing Area;

• Abstract contains a [Reference]

• No reference for YANG Tree Diagrams

• No mention of the current YANG 1.1 RFC

• No YANG version statement in the module

• No mention of NMDA in the body of the I-D (but it does appear in the YANG Module)

• No references for the imported modules and the RFC in question do not appear in the I-D Normative References

• YANG module references RFC8242 which does not appear in the I-D Normative References

• RFC 6536 is obsolete

2.07/31/2018 This I-D

• fails to mention whether or not it is NMDA compliant in the Abstract and Introduction

• fails to use the current definitions of terminology from RFC8342

• references the old version of RFC2119 key words

• has no Note to the RFC Editor asking them to replace the YANG module dates with date of publication. I suggest a Note asking them to replace XXXX with the number assigned to this I-D at the start of the I-D rather than asking them to replace 'draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02 ' which, should this I-D be adopted, will be wrong

• has no Copyright statement in the YANG module

• lacks references for several imported modules.

• starts Section 4 well with a good sentence but fails to mention most imports

• has serious formatting problems with the text in the YANG module with lines being way too long for an RFC (it is probably not a coincidence that other I-Ds have had the same problem - the right options in pyang fix this AFAIK)

• has no IANA Considerations; no IANA Considerations means that you are not producing a YANG module no matter what it looks like.

• Security Considerations are much better than usual but lack detail of sensitive nodes

• Tree diagrams has the right reference but then spoils it by including text about the symbols

• has out of date references [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis] [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis] which belie the claimed date of June 28, 2018 for this I-D; 2018-01-27 looks more like it:-)

• has arp as a Informative Reference - Normative I think.