Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
RFC 7864
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 17 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
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?
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection