Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
RFC 5094

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

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) (was Discuss, Abstain) No Objection

Comment (2007-09-19)
No email
send info
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) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2007-09-20 for -)
No email
send info
> 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.

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Comment (2007-09-19 for -)
No email
send info
>    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.

(David Ward) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) Abstain

Comment (2007-09-19 for -)
No email
send info
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.