Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

> Vendor specific extensions to protocols can cause serious
   interoperability issues if they are not used carefully. 

I believe that the concerns related to deployment of vendor specific extensions extend beyond interoperability to operational issues like overhead on hosts and routers, impact on network traffic, etc. 

I suggest to chage this phrase as follows: 

   Vendor specific extensions to protocols can cause serious
   interoperability issues and may have adverse operational impact like 
   overhead on hosts and routers, network overload, congestion and
   other if they are not used carefully.

(David Ward; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

>    Length
>
>       A 8-bit indicating the length of the option in octets excluding
>       the Type and Length fields.

Please be specific about whether the Vendor ID is included in the length or not.

>    Vendor ID
>
>       The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the Vendor/
>       Organization as defined by IANA.

Reference for above, please.

Looks like you could turn a Vendor ID option into an Experimental Option simply by letting the Vendor ID be zero. I can see pros and cons to that, and don't have a lot of conviction either way. Just an observation.

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Abstain) No Objection

Need to add text convincing the reader that vendor specific options are a good thing in low level protocols. Also need to add text regarding interoperability issues.

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) Abstain

I'm unsure of the value of a vendor specific option in something as low-level as MIP6.  Also, I don't believe the discussion of interoperability and security is strong enough.