Subject: [netext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:30:37 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17: 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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob/

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

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?

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:53:24 +0100

Hi Stephen,

On your comment, I must say that I have a different opinion from what
is expressed in the shepherd write-up :D. I think there is a demand for
flow mobility. Just to cite an example, the document is referenced
in 3GPP TR 23.861 (Network based IP flow mobility).

Thanks,

Carlos