DHCP Options for the Port Control Protocol (PCP)
RFC 7291
Yes
No Objection
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
The first para of the Introduction says This document defines DHCPv4 [RFC2131] and DHCPv6 [RFC3315] options that can be used to provision PCP server [RFC6887] IP addresses. Of course, you mean that the addresses are stable and are provided as information to the clients. You don't mean that the addresses are provisioned into the server. The Abstract has this a bit better, and I suggest you say something like... This document defines DHCPv4 [RFC2131] and DHCPv6 [RFC3315] options that can be used to inform PCP clients of PCP server [RFC6887] IP addresses.
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
Good document, looking forward to the resolution of Stephen's questions and Brian's question about the normative reference.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
I support Stephen's position
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my comments.
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with Pete's DISCUSS. Either the servers are functionally equivalent, in which case you don't need to distinguish between their addresses, or they're not, in which case you need to provide the client some way to tell which to use. The document currently distinguishes between servers without telling the client how to pick one.
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for handling my discuss #1 and bringing the other point to the attention of the WG. ------- OLD COMMENTS - I agree with Brian's discuss point #2 about the normative reference. - section 1: I didn't get the meaning of the last sentence here. - section 3: The multiple lists thing seems over complex to me but I guess the WG discussed that and the DHC folks are presumably ok with it too. - 3.2: Extracting an IPv4 address from an IPv4-mapped (doesn't that need a ref?) IPv6 address seems quite hacky. Might be good to a) say more about how to do that in general and b) say why you need to do it.
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) Abstain
ipv6 mapped ipv4 addresses are a serious liability and I would vastly prefer to see those dropped as the mechanism for employing them is elided anyway. that said iwill not block publication on that basis.