Verizon Wireless Dynamic Mobile IP Key Update for cdma2000(R) Networks
RFC 4784

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) Yes

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

(Ross Callon) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-09)
No email
send info
My "no objection" is based on the proposed IESG note, my understanding is that this is deployed, and that Verizon wireless is the source (even if the author has changed jobs). With these understandings and appropriate warning, it makes sense to me to document the protocol as either informational or historic regardless of whether we actually like the protocol.

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-24)
No email
send info
I'm with Tim on preferring to see this go to Historic.

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Chris Newman) (was Yes) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-10)
No email
send info
With the specified IESG note, and the title which clearly identifies this
as a vendor-specific extension, I believe it is beneficial to the community
to have this published.  Documenting deployed badness helps us learn from
our mistakes both of implementation and omission.  The fact a vendor felt
it necessary to create this extension suggests our standards may not
adequately handle the bootstrap/zeroconf issues.

(Tim Polk) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-09)
No email
send info
Although we can admit as an exception discussing the document around an RFC Editor supplied source, I would not like this exception to be considered a precedent. If we are to change the procedures I would argue that an RFC file even with a diff provided is more difficult to check for changes because of the many editorial style and format changes introduced by the RFC Editor which make difficult the identification of the content changes that interest the IESG members.

Magnus Westerlund No Objection