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

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

OK Sri, that's clear.
A shepherd write-up might more usefully say "We didn't ask, and no-one told us".
A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 04 August 2014 21:16
> To: Adrian Farrel; The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [netext] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-
> up-separation-05: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
> The comment in the chair-writeup, "No vendors have expressly stated a plan
> to implement this specification either" is not entirely accurate.
> 
> AFAIK, we do not have a process where the WG asks vendors to provide
> implementation plans. So, the question was never asked and there was no
> reason for any one to specially come forward and publicly announce their
> intent to implement a specific draft and publish a time line. I'm not
> suggesting the WG should ask such information either as that is touching
> vendor product roadmaps and will be too intrusive.
> 
> Now that IESG is asking this question and my response is yes. Talking on
> behalf of my company, we absolutely have plans to use this option in our
> product line.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/4/14 10:56 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >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.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >netext mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext