Description Option for the Port Control Protocol (PCP)
draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-05-13
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-04-21
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-04-21
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-03-22
|
05 | Roni Even | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. |
2014-03-11
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-03-11
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-03-02
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-02-27
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-02-27
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-02-27
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-02-27
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-02-26
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-02-26
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2014-02-26
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-02-26
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-02-26
|
05 | Ted Lemon | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-02-26
|
05 | Ted Lemon | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-02-21
|
05 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my issues. Here's what's left: Section 2: - I still believe that "The description text MUST NOT be null terminated" … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my issues. Here's what's left: Section 2: - I still believe that "The description text MUST NOT be null terminated" is probably wrong, but at least unnecessary. The document now says, "the description text is not null terminated", and puts the requirement on the receiver to do the right thing. This sounds like you're still requiring the sender to scan for the terminating null. But I don't think that anything bad will happen because of this. Section 3, Paragraphs 4 & 5 try to put limits on the internal buffer sizes of the server, which is not appropriate. Please replace *both* paragraphs 4 & 5 with the following: Because of the UDP payload limit of 1100 octets, the Length of the Description MUST NOT exceed 1016 octets. The suggested maximum length is 128 octets. If a PCP client includes a DESCRIPTION option with a length exceeding the maximum length supported by the PCP server, only the portion of the Description field fitting that maximum length is stored by the PCP server and returned to the PCP client in the response. |
2014-02-21
|
05 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-02-21
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-02-21
|
05 | Naveen Khan | New revision available |
2014-02-20
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-02-20
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Agree with Stephen - should not leak privacy data is pretty lame |
2014-02-20
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2014-02-20
|
04 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2014-02-20
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Phillip Hallam-Baker. |
2014-02-20
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-02-19
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-02-19
|
04 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-02-19
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-02-19
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I do support: 1. Pete's (and Stephen's) points on the null character … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I do support: 1. Pete's (and Stephen's) points on the null character 2. Pete's Comments on implementation details in Section 3 3. Stephen's Comment on needing better/more privacy discussion related to the DESCRIPTION field |
2014-02-19
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-02-17
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing the OPS-DIR feedback. |
2014-02-17
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-02-17
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] It looks like Pete's DISCUSS point about the NUL termination is resolved; that works for me. |
2014-02-17
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-02-17
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - "o Etc." is not a good bullet in a PS - "SHOULD NOT be used to leak privacy-related information" is pretty lame … [Ballot comment] - "o Etc." is not a good bullet in a PS - "SHOULD NOT be used to leak privacy-related information" is pretty lame really isn't it? Who do you know that would set out to "leak privacy related information"? Perhaps giving some better guidance, e.g. say to not use customer IDs or names or PII or addresses or locations, would be easy and worthwhile? - On Pete's null terminated issue and the resulting mail threads. I assume that the authors know that mid-string null's have been used as part of deliberate attacks against PKI? So there are security reasons as well as interop reasons for not wanting nulls anywhere within strings. Not worth a discuss, but maybe worth a note. |
2014-02-17
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-02-17
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-02-15
|
04 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot discuss] This document needs some work: Section 2: - Please add something along the lines of, "The 'Reserved' field MUST be set to 0 … [Ballot discuss] This document needs some work: Section 2: - Please add something along the lines of, "The 'Reserved' field MUST be set to 0 and MUST be ignored by receiving implementations." - Please add something like, "The 'Length' field contains the length, in octets, of the 'Description' field. It MUST NOT exceed 1016. (See section 3.)" - I am utterly mystified by, "The description text MUST NOT be null terminated." If you wanted to say, "The description MUST NOT contain *any* null (U+0000) characters" because you don't want to confuse things that will accidentally treat the middle of the string as the terminator, I might get it. But if you're going to allow internal ones, I don't get why you care whether the description has a trailing null. If that's what the client wants, what does the server care? |
2014-02-15
|
04 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Section 3 gives a bunch of local implementation details as if they were spec requirements. You can't possibly require what the PCP server … [Ballot comment] Section 3 gives a bunch of local implementation details as if they were spec requirements. You can't possibly require what the PCP server will do internally with this stuff. Please rewrite the first four paragraphs with the following suggested text: The DESCRIPTION option is OPTIONAL for both PCP servers and PCP clients. This option (Code TBA, Figure 1) MAY be included in a PCP MAP/PEER request to associate a description with the requested mapping. A PCP server MAY ignore the DESCRIPTION option set to it by a PCP client. (It can either simply not support the option, or it can be configured to ignore it.) To signal that it has not accepted the option, a PCP server simply does not include the DESCRIPTION option in the response. If the PCP client does not receive a DESCRIPTION option in a response to a request enclosing a DESCRIPTION option, this means the PCP server does not support that option or it is configured to ignore it. If the DESCRIPTION option is not included in the PCP client request, the PCP server MUST NOT include the DESCRIPTION option in the associated response. Paragraphs 5 & 6 try to put limits on the internal buffer sizes of the server, and give no indication of the reason for the length limits. Please rewrite as follows: Because of the UDP payload limit of 1100 octets, the Length of the Description MUST NOT exceed 1016 octets. The suggested maximum length is 128 octets. If a PCP client includes a DESCRIPTION option with a length exceeding the maximum length supported by the PCP server, only the portion of the Description field fitting that maximum length is stored by the PCP server and returned to the PCP client in the response. Paragraphs 7 & 9 again try to specify internal behavior. Instead: If the PCP client request contains invalid DESCRIPTION options (e.g., the content is not a legal UTF-8 string), the PCP server MUST ignore the request (i.e., MUST NOT return a DESCRIPTION option in the response). [Paragraph 8 is fine] The PCP client uses empty DESCRIPTION option (i.e., Length set to 0) to erase the description text associated with a mapping. To indicate that the PCP server has successfully cleared the description text associated with a mapping, the PCP server returns back the empty DESCRIPTION option in the response. |
2014-02-15
|
04 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-02-13
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2014-02-13
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2014-02-11
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2014-02-10
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-02-06
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
2014-02-06
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
2014-02-04
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-02-04
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. |
2014-02-04
|
04 | Ted Lemon | Ballot has been issued |
2014-02-04
|
04 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-02-04
|
04 | Ted Lemon | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-02-04
|
04 | Ted Lemon | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-02-04
|
04 | Ted Lemon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-02-20 |
2014-02-04
|
04 | Ted Lemon | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2014-02-04
|
04 | Ted Lemon | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-02-04
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2014-02-03
|
04 | Mohamed Boucadair | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2014-02-03
|
04 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-04.txt |
2014-02-03
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-02-03
|
03 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed the current version draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed the current version draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA has a question about the request made in the IANA Considerations section of this document. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the PCP Options subregistry of the Port Control Protocol (PCP) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters/ a single value from the optional-to-process range is to be registered as follows: Name: DESCRIPTION Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] 1) IANA Question: What entries should be added for DESCRIPTION in the following fields of the PCP Options registry as defined in RFC6887? Purpose Valid for Opcodes Length May Appear in Maximum Occurances 2) IANA wants to point out the URL in the IANA Considerations section: Please change the URL: FROM: http://www.iana.org/ assignments/pcp-parameters/pcp-parameters.xml#option-rules TO: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters This will ensure the URL will always work and point to the most current version/extension. IANA understands that this action is the only one required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2014-01-27
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2014-01-27
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2014-01-23
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2014-01-23
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2014-01-23
|
03 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03.txt |
2014-01-21
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-01-21
|
02 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (PCP Description Option) to Proposed … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (PCP Description Option) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Port Control Protocol WG (pcp) to consider the following document: - 'PCP Description Option' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document extends Port Control Protocol (PCP) with the ability to associate a description with a PCP-instantiated mapping. It does so by defining a new DESCRIPTION option. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-description-option/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-description-option/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-01-21
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-01-21
|
02 | Ted Lemon | Last call was requested |
2014-01-21
|
02 | Ted Lemon | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-01-21
|
02 | Ted Lemon | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-01-21
|
02 | Ted Lemon | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-01-21
|
02 | Ted Lemon | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2013-11-21
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Phillip Hallam-Baker. |
2013-11-14
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
2013-11-14
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
2013-11-04
|
02 | Dave Thaler | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-04
|
02 | Dave Thaler | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-11-04
|
02 | Dave Thaler | State Change Notice email list changed to pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pcp-description-option@tools.ietf.org |
2013-11-04
|
02 | Dave Thaler | Responsible AD changed to Ted Lemon |
2013-11-04
|
02 | Dave Thaler | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-04
|
02 | Dave Thaler | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-11-04
|
02 | Dave Thaler | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-11-04
|
02 | Dave Thaler | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2013-11-04
|
02 | Dave Thaler | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2013-11-04
|
02 | Dave Thaler | Changed document writeup |
2013-11-03
|
02 | Dave Thaler | Created proto writeup. Waiting for authors to ACK, will then submit to IESG. |
2013-11-03
|
02 | Dave Thaler | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2013-11-03
|
02 | Dave Thaler | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2013-11-03
|
02 | Dave Thaler | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2013-11-03
|
02 | Dave Thaler | Document shepherd changed to Dave Thaler |
2013-11-03
|
02 | Dave Thaler | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-21
|
02 | Dave Thaler | At last IETF meeting, Paul Selkirk volunteered to review, hence waiting for Paul's ok. |
2013-10-21
|
02 | Dave Thaler | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2013-07-30
|
02 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-02.txt |
2013-06-03
|
01 | Reinaldo Penno | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from Call For Adoption By WG Issued |
2013-06-03
|
01 | Reinaldo Penno | IETF WG state changed to Call For Adoption By WG Issued from WG Document |
2013-05-20
|
01 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-01.txt |
2013-03-11
|
00 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-00.txt |