[netext] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: (with COMMENT)

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't object to this document, but I found...
> No known implementations of the protocol exist at this time. No
> vendors have expressly stated a plan to implement this 
> specification either.
...a little odd for a Standard Track document, especially since there was
apparently such clear consensus that this is a problem that needs to be
solved.
I guess I am old-fashioned enough to hope for running code from time to
time.