[netext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17: (with COMMENT)

"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 17 March 2016 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: netext@ietf.org
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3B912D522; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160317113037.10560.4562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:30:37 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/knmzEXDZIljsMYqHr3ZqtDmoEBA>
Cc: netext@ietf.org, netext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@ietf.org
Subject: [netext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netext/>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:30:37 -0000

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17: 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 https://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:


The shepherd write-up says: 

  "Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? 

  No. The relevance of flow mobility at the present time is
  suspect. While there is some adoption of Proxy Mobile IPv6 by
  the industry, there is no real demand for flow based mobility."

I wondered why this is then being frozen into an RFC? That can
be the right thing to do sometimes, but the above does make it
seem questionable. So I'm asking:-) And did you consider if an
experimental RFC would send the right signal?