Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-03
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-09-20)
Unknown
> 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 IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-09-19)
Unknown
> 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 IESG member
(was Discuss, Abstain)
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-09-19)
Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2007-09-19)
Unknown
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.