Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device - Port Control Protocol Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF)
RFC 6970
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
The changes proposed in response to Martin's DISCUSS resolve my concerns with the document.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for addressing my issues.
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- 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 steering group member) No Objection
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.