Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device - Port Control Protocol Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF)
draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-10
Yes
(Ted Lemon)
No Objection
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Pete Resnick)
(Sean Turner)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -08)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-23 for -08)
Unknown
I am balloting No Objection on this document on the strength of the sponsoring AD's review and the document's apparent non-impact on the routing system. --- From the shepherd write-up: The PCP WG has a policy to not send a document until the WG has consensus and there are at least 5 people who have reviewed and ok'ed the document. Many others were involved in reviews of earlier versions, but the WGLC oks came from: Xiaohong Deng <dxhbupt@gmail.com> Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> Reinaldo Penno <repenno@cisco.com> Tiru Reddy <tireddy@cisco.com> Paul Selkirk <pselkirk@isc.org> Noting that one of the five is an author :-)
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-23 for -08)
Unknown
The changes proposed in response to Martin's DISCUSS resolve my concerns with the document.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-26)
Unknown
Thank you for addressing my issues.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-24 for -09)
Unknown
Thanks, this looks like a very clearly written document. The flow diagrams help a lot. One minor thing: It would be helpful for terminology to be consistent between Figures 2/3/4. For example, Client vs. Local Host, and Host vs. Peer. Also, the "PREFER_FAILURE" option makes me laugh :)
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-03)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-25 for -09)
Unknown
- I support Sean's discuss. (And thought that the secdir review was a really good one.) - uPnP seems to cause a lot of folks security concerns so I was surprised that there was such a short security considerations section. However, since I know almost nothing about uPnP and only a little about PCP and have not had a chance to properly go into this, I don't have a valid discuss to ballot (unless I find time in the next two hours to read more about it;-)
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-25 for -09)
Unknown
I am puzzled about the inconsistency between the terminology on slide 2, and that in slide 3 & 4. Why has a Client become a Local Host and a Host become a Remote Host? Note 'Host' is defined in the text as a remote peer reachable in the Internet.