Skip to main content

DHCP Options for the Port Control Protocol (PCP)
RFC 7291

Yes

(Ted Lemon)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)

Abstain


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -11)

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-04-06 for -11)
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

No Objection (for -11)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-04-08 for -11)
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

No Objection (for -11)

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-04-09 for -11)
I support Stephen's position

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -11)

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2014-04-14)
Thanks for addressing my comments.

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-04-09 for -11)
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

No Objection (for -11)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2014-04-15)
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

Abstain (2014-04-09 for -11)
 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.