Skip to main content

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

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 steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -08)

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-04-23 for -08)
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

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

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

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -08)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2013-04-26)
Thank you for addressing my issues.

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-04-24 for -09)
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

No Objection (2013-05-03)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-04-25 for -09)


- 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

No Objection (2013-04-25 for -09)
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.