Port Control Protocol (PCP)
RFC 6887

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
29 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2015-12-31
29 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2015-10-14
29 (System) Notify list changed from pcp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pcp-base@ietf.org to (None)
2013-05-01
29 (System) IANA registries were updated to include RFC6887
2013-04-29
29 (System) RFC published
2013-04-29
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2013-02-22
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2012-12-19
29 Ralph Droms
Document was returned to IESG state while issue raised by Sam Hartman was addressed.  Sam pointed out what he considered to be a vulnerability introduced ...
2012-11-29
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2012-11-29
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2012-11-28
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2012-11-28
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2012-11-26
29 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2012-11-21
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2012-11-20
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2012-11-20
29 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2012-11-20
29 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2012-11-20
29 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2012-11-20
29 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2012-11-20
29 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2012-11-20
29 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2012-11-08
29 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
I am still convinced that the notion of "subscriber" is unnecessary for this protocol and should be removed. It is sufficient to talk ...
2012-11-08
29 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-11-07
29 Dan Wing New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-29.txt
2012-10-02
28 Dan Wing New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-28.txt
2012-09-20
27 Dan Wing New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-27.txt
2012-08-02
26 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to Yes from No Objection
2012-07-21
26 Pete Resnick
[Ballot discuss]
I understand the design philosophy now with section 6. There is only one thing that remains a concern to me, and if it ...
2012-07-21
26 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
I am still convinced that the notion of "subscriber" is unnecessary for this protocol and should be removed. It is sufficient to talk ...
2012-07-21
26 Pete Resnick Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Pete Resnick
2012-07-19
26 Ralph Droms [Ballot comment]
I've cleared.  Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Comment points.
2012-07-19
26 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-07-06
26 Cindy Morgan Responsible AD changed to Ralph Droms from Jari Arkko
2012-07-06
26 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-06-06
26 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

I've cleared my discuss since the THIRD_PARTY feature is now
constrained as discussed. However, I still feel that section 17 could
do with ...
2012-06-06
26 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-06-05
26 Dan Wing New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-26.txt
2012-05-29
25 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-05-21
25 Dan Wing New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-25.txt
2012-03-19
24 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]
#1 3rd party thing and authorization. I don't get the justification
for why its ok to leave authentication up to implementers? How would ...
2012-03-19
24 Stephen Farrell Ballot discuss text updated for Stephen Farrell
2012-03-18
24 Wesley Eddy [Ballot comment]
my DISCUSS comments are addressed in the current version; it looks good now
2012-03-18
24 Wesley Eddy Ballot comment text updated for Wesley Eddy
2012-03-18
24 Wesley Eddy [Ballot comment]
my DISCUSS comments are addressed in the current version
2012-03-18
24 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] Position for Wesley Eddy has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-03-15
24 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
1. cleared.

2. As understand the specification, one of the key points on which
client and server behavior is based is that there ...
2012-03-15
24 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
1. cleared.

2. cleared.

3. cleared.

4. I think section 7.4 needs editing for clarification, in light of
"single-homed" assumption.  As I read ...
2012-03-15
24 Ralph Droms Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Ralph Droms
2012-03-12
24 Pete Resnick
[Ballot discuss]
[I am updating simply to remove things that have been addressed. However, though the new section 6 explains the design motivation, it invites ...
2012-03-12
24 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
The notion of "subscriber" is unnecessary for this protocol and should be removed. It is sufficient to talk about per-host limits and quotas ...
2012-03-12
24 Pete Resnick Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Pete Resnick
2012-03-12
24 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2012-03-12
24 Dan Wing New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-24.txt
2012-03-02
23 Martin Stiemerling Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR Completed. Reviewer: Pasi Sarolahti.
2012-03-01
23 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Dan Harkins.
2012-03-01
23 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation
2012-03-01
23 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2012-03-01
23 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2012-03-01
23 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
1. This point addresses the scope of PCP and should be easily
addressed with some additional text.  I think it's important to have ...
2012-03-01
23 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
1. From section 6.1:

  Requested Lifetime:  An unsigned 32-bit integer, in seconds, ranging
      from 0 to 2^32-1 seconds.  This ...
2012-03-01
23 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ralph E. Droms
2012-03-01
23 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]
#1 3rd party thing and authorization. I don't get the justification
for why its ok to leave authentication up to implementers? How would ...
2012-03-01
23 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]
- I agree with the many discusses about the lack of a transaction
ID, the current scheme is not great and seems brittle. ...
2012-03-01
23 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2012-03-01
23 Jari Arkko State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2012-02-29
23 Peter Saint-Andre
[Ballot comment]
Other reviewers have provided significant input. I have a few additional comments.

In Section 7.5, is the recommendation about 6.25% clock skew based ...
2012-02-29
23 Peter Saint-Andre Ballot comment text updated for Peter Saint-Andre
2012-02-29
23 Peter Saint-Andre
[Ballot comment]
In Section 7.5, is the recommendation about 6.25% clock skew based on empirical evidence?

In Section 8 (bullet 6), why would the client ...
2012-02-29
23 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Peter Saint-Andre
2012-02-29
23 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
I find all of the references to the "interworking function" from UPnP to be inappropriate in this document and should be removed. This ...
2012-02-29
23 Pete Resnick Ballot comment text updated for Pete Resnick
2012-02-29
23 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2012-02-28
23 Wesley Eddy
[Ballot discuss]
(1) In Section 13.1.3, when discussing responses to unsolicited multicasted ANNOUNCE messages, there seems to be potential for a large number of packets ...
2012-02-28
23 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy
2012-02-28
23 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
1) Section 7 paragraph 2 asserts the protocol is idempotent, but then shows an example where it isn't.
If you allow a retransmitted ...
2012-02-28
23 Robert Sparks Ballot discuss text updated for Robert Sparks
2012-02-28
23 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
1) Section 7 paragraph 2 asserts the protocol is idempotent, but then shows an example where it isn't.
If you allow a retransmitted ...
2012-02-28
23 Robert Sparks [Ballot comment]
The statement "Of course, this sort of behavior is common to all UDP-based protocols" just before section 7.1 is not true.
2012-02-28
23 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2012-02-27
23 Pete Resnick
[Ballot discuss]
[Note: I'm on vacation this week and therefore my RTT will be exceedingly long. I've only just gotten through the beginning of section ...
2012-02-27
23 Pete Resnick Ballot discuss text updated for Pete Resnick
2012-02-27
23 Pete Resnick
[Ballot discuss]
Section 6.3:

  The handling of an Option by the PCP client and PCP server MUST be
  specified in an appropriate document, ...
2012-02-27
23 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
I find all of the references to the "interworking function" from UPnP to be inappropriate in this document and should be removed. This ...
2012-02-27
23 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2012-02-27
23 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Note to responsible AD. This document requests the creation of
regsistries that use the "specification required" allocation policy.
That means you will need ...
2012-02-27
23 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2012-02-27
23 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Richard Barnes on 27-Feb-2012 raised a few
  concerns.  Please respond to at least these concerns:
 
  (1) ...
2012-02-27
23 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Richard Barnes on 27-Feb-2012 raised a few
  concerns.  Please consider these points:
 
  (a) The document says ...
2012-02-27
23 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2012-02-27
23 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu
2012-02-27
23 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2012-02-18
23 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dan Harkins
2012-02-18
23 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dan Harkins
2012-02-16
23 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Richard Barnes
2012-02-16
23 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Richard Barnes
2012-02-16
23 Jean Mahoney Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Suresh Krishnan was rejected
2012-02-16
23 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan
2012-02-16
23 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan
2012-02-16
23 Martin Stiemerling Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Pasi Sarolahti
2012-02-16
23 Martin Stiemerling Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Pasi Sarolahti
2012-02-13
23 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2012-02-13
23 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> ...
2012-02-13
23 Jari Arkko Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-03-01
2012-02-13
23 Jari Arkko Last Call was requested
2012-02-13
23 Jari Arkko State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup.
2012-02-13
23 Jari Arkko Last Call text changed
2012-02-13
23 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2012-02-13
23 Jari Arkko Ballot has been issued
2012-02-13
23 Jari Arkko Created "Approve" ballot
2012-02-13
23 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2012-02-13
23 (System) Last call text was added
2012-02-10
23 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2012-02-10
23 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-23.txt
2012-02-07
23 Jari Arkko State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation.
2012-02-07
23 Jari Arkko
I have completed my review of the PCP base specification. Overall, I am very happy with the way that this specification has been written. I ...
2012-02-07
23 Jari Arkko
I am continuing with my review, and have read until about page 50. I have no suggested improvements at this point.

I will complete the ...
2012-02-07
23 Jari Arkko
I have reviewed the first part of this draft, up until about page 30. Here are  my comments:

In general, I have found that the ...
2012-01-30
23 Jari Arkko Ballot writeup text changed
2012-01-30
23 Jari Arkko Ballot writeup text changed
2012-01-30
23 Jari Arkko State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2012-01-23
23 Cindy Morgan
  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>

        Has the
        Document Shepherd ...
2012-01-23
23 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
2012-01-23
23 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Dave Thaler (dthaler@microsoft.com) is the document shepherd.' added
2012-01-19
22 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-22.txt
2012-01-13
21 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-21.txt
2012-01-10
20 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-20.txt
2011-12-19
19 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-19.txt
2011-12-01
18 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-18.txt
2011-10-31
17 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-17.txt
2011-10-21
16 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-16.txt
2011-10-20
15 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-15.txt
2011-10-09
14 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-14.txt
2011-07-06
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-13.txt
2011-05-20
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-12.txt
2011-05-14
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-11.txt
2011-04-29
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-10.txt
2011-04-26
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-09.txt
2011-04-21
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-08.txt
2011-03-14
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-07.txt
2011-03-01
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-06.txt
2011-02-22
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-05.txt
2011-02-07
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-04.txt
2011-01-19
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-03.txt
2011-01-04
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-02.txt
2010-12-15
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-01.txt
2010-12-03
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-base-00.txt