Skip to main content

Multicast Mobility in Mobile IP Version 6 (MIPv6): Problem Statement and Brief Survey
RFC 5757

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
Cc: The IESG <>, <>,
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be:

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Multicast Mobility in
MIPv6: Problem Statement and Brief Survey'
<draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-08.txt> as an Informational RFC.

The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in

the datatracker 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:

The process for such documents is described at

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document is a problem statement about multicast mobility.

Working Group Summary

   This is a product of the MOBOPTS RG at the IRTF.

Document Quality

   This document has the consensus of the MOBOPTS RG behind it.


   The responsible AD is Jari Arkko.

RFC Editor Note

   The IESG has reviewed this document and believes that the following
   response from RFC 3932 Section 3 is appropriate:

   2. The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in
      the MULTIMOB WG, but this does not prevent publishing.


   Not applicable.


   The following note from RFC 3932 Section 4 applies:

      This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
      The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
      any purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on
      IETF review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work.
      The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its
      discretion.  See RFC 3932 for more information.

   However, if this document is published as an RFC after the RFC 3932bis

   and headers and boilerplates documents have been approved, no note
   is required.

RFC Editor Note