Skip to main content

Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
RFC 7864

Yes

(Brian Haberman)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)
(Barry Leiba)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)

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

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -17)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -17)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -17)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -17)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -17)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -17)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -17)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -17)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (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?

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -17)