Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device - Port Control Protocol Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF)
RFC 6970

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Ted Lemon) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-24 for -09)
No email
send info
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 :)

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-25 for -09)
No email
send info
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.

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-23 for -08)
No email
send info
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 :-)

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-25 for -09)
No email
send info

- 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;-)

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-23 for -08)
No email
send info
The changes proposed in response to Martin's DISCUSS resolve my concerns with the document.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-26)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my issues.

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection