Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-18

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 17 and is now closed.

Search Mailarchive

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Alia Atlas No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2016-03-17 for -17)
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?

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Terry Manderson No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection