Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-18
Yes
(Brian Haberman)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(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.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -17)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -17)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -17)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -17)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -17)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -17)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -17)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -17)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -17)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-03-17 for -17)
Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -17)
Unknown