Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
RFC 7864

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

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2016-03-17 for -17)
No email
send info
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?

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection