Subject: [netext] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 10:56:15 -0700

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't object to this document, but I found...
> No known implementations of the protocol exist at this time. No
> vendors have expressly stated a plan to implement this 
> specification either.
...a little odd for a Standard Track document, especially since there was
apparently such clear consensus that this is a problem that needs to be
solved.
I guess I am old-fashioned enough to hope for running code from time to
time.

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 20:15:31 +0000

Hi Adrian,

> a little odd for a Standard Track document, especially since there was
>apparently such clear
> consensus that this is a problem that needs to be solved. I guess I am
>old-fashioned enough
> to hope for running code from time to time.

The comment in the chair-writeup, "No vendors have expressly stated a plan
to implement this specification either" is not entirely accurate.

AFAIK, we do not have a process where the WG asks vendors to provide
implementation plans. So, the question was never asked and there was no
reason for any one to specially come forward and publicly announce their
intent to implement a specific draft and publish a time line. I'm not
suggesting the WG should ask such information either as that is touching
vendor product roadmaps and will be too intrusive.

Now that IESG is asking this question and my response is yes. Talking on
behalf of my company, we absolutely have plans to use this option in our
product line. 

Regards
Sri

On 8/4/14 10:56 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>netext mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 22:36:40 +0100

OK Sri, that's clear.
A shepherd write-up might more usefully say "We didn't ask, and no-one told us".
A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 04 August 2014 21:16
> To: Adrian Farrel; The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netext] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-
> up-separation-05: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Adrian,
>