Skip to main content

Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
RFC 5094

Yes

(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)

Abstain


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

Lars Eggert
(was Discuss) No Objection
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2007-09-20)
> 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 ()

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2007-09-19)
>    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)
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 ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain (2007-09-19)
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.