Skip to main content

Port Control Protocol (PCP) Server Selection
draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-03-09
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2015-03-05
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2015-02-24
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-02-11
10 Alexey Melnikov Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov.
2015-01-31
10 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-01-26
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-01-26
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-01-26
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-01-26
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2015-01-26
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2015-01-26
10 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-01-26
10 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-01-26
10 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2015-01-22
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2015-01-22
10 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-01-22
10 Brian Haberman [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing these issues.
2015-01-22
10 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2015-01-22
10 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-10.txt
2015-01-22
09 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-01-21
09 Mohamed Boucadair IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-01-21
09 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-09.txt
2015-01-21
08 Richard Barnes
[Ballot comment]
I support Brian's DISCUSS points, especially the one about one vs. multiple PCP servers.  If the client doesn't know which case it's in, …
[Ballot comment]
I support Brian's DISCUSS points, especially the one about one vs. multiple PCP servers.  If the client doesn't know which case it's in, it can't really follow these procedures.
2015-01-21
08 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2015-01-21
08 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-01-21
08 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
I support Stephen's comments and think the SecDir reviewer recommendations would be helpful.
2015-01-21
08 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-01-21
08 Brian Haberman
[Ballot discuss]
I have some questions on some of the procedures described in this draft.  These are not showstoppers, but places where I think some …
[Ballot discuss]
I have some questions on some of the procedures described in this draft.  These are not showstoppers, but places where I think some clarification is needed.

* It is unclear to me from reading this document, RFC 6887, and RFC 7291 how a PCP client knows how to distinguish if it is configured with multiple PCP servers or a single PCP server with multiple addresses.  It is possible that I missed something, so some guidance is requested.  The nonce does not seem to help since the PCP server just echos back in the MAP Response what was received in the MAP Request.  How does the PCP client know if it is talking to one or multiple PCP servers?

* Section 3, bullet #4 says:

      The PCP client SHOULD ignore any response received from an IP
      address after exhausting MRC attempts for that particular IP
      address.

If the PCP client is still trying to contact a PCP server, why would it willingly ignore a valid response?  If I have 3 addresses for the PCP server and am in the process of trying address 3, what is wrong with accepting a late response that arrives from address 2?

I am also confused about the SHOULD in this bullet that says "If, when sending PCP requests, the PCP client receives a hard ICMP error [RFC1122] it SHOULD immediately try the next IP address from the list of PCP server IP addresses."  If it is a hard error, isn't this a MUST?
2015-01-21
08 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-01-21
08 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- I don't get how one can really ensure the restriction
below is satisfied, nor why it's needed. (I do get that some …
[Ballot comment]

- I don't get how one can really ensure the restriction
below is satisfied, nor why it's needed. (I do get that some
setups will be able to check that.)

" o  The configuration mechanism must distinguish IP
addresses that belong to the same PCP server."

- The secdir review [1] also makes a resonable point that
explaining the risk (here) of Nonce re-use would be good.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05355.html
2015-01-21
08 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-01-21
08 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
"If the PCP client has exhausted all IP addresses configured for a
      given PCP server, the procedure SHOULD be repeated …
[Ballot comment]
"If the PCP client has exhausted all IP addresses configured for a
      given PCP server, the procedure SHOULD be repeated every fifteen
      (15) minutes until the PCP request is successfully answered."

Is there something that prevents a client from re-trying this procedure endlessly for a server whose whole set of IP addresses remains unresponsive? Phone call to tech support? ;)
2015-01-21
08 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-01-21
08 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-01-19
08 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
In this text:

  1.  A PCP client should construct a set of candidate source addresses
      (Section 4 of [ …
[Ballot comment]
In this text:

  1.  A PCP client should construct a set of candidate source addresses
      (Section 4 of [RFC6724]), based on application input and PCP
      [RFC6887] constraints.  For example, when sending a PEER or a MAP
      with FILTER request for an existing TCP connection, the only
      candidate source address is the source address used for the
      existing TCP connection.  But when sending a MAP request for a
      service that will accept incoming connections, the candidate
      source addresses may be all of the node's IP addresses, or some
      subset of IP addresses on which the service is configured to
      listen.

  2.  The PCP client then sorts the PCP server IP addresses as per
      Section 6 of [RFC6724] using the candidate source addresses
      selected in the previous step as input to the destination address
      selection algorithm.

if I'm understanding this, if multiple PCP clients end up with the same list of candidate source addresses. and then sort the same list into the same order, does that mean they'll tend to select the same IP addresses that have sorted to the front of the list, even though the PCP server has multiple IP addresses, or will something I'm not seeing cause a more balanced load distribution?

Perhaps there are reasons why that's OK, but I thought I should ask ...
2015-01-19
08 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-01-19
08 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-01-19
08 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-01-19
08 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2015-01-17
08 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2015-01-15
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2015-01-15
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2015-01-13
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-01-12
08 Ted Lemon IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-01-12
08 Ted Lemon Ballot has been issued
2015-01-12
08 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2015-01-12
08 Ted Lemon Created "Approve" ballot
2015-01-12
08 Ted Lemon Ballot writeup was changed
2015-01-12
08 Ted Lemon Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-01-12
08 Ted Lemon IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup
2015-01-08
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Christopher Inacio.
2015-01-07
08 Mohamed Boucadair IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-01-07
08 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-08.txt
2015-01-07
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2014-12-22
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2014-12-22
07 Amanda Baber
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2014-12-19
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2014-12-19
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2014-12-18
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Christopher Inacio
2014-12-18
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Christopher Inacio
2014-12-18
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Fajardo
2014-12-18
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Fajardo
2014-12-18
07 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2014-12-18
07 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (PCP Server Selection) to Proposed …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (PCP Server Selection) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Port Control Protocol WG (pcp)
to consider the following document:
- 'PCP Server Selection'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-01-07. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The document specifies the behavior to be followed by a PCP client to
  contact its PCP server(s) when one or several PCP server IP addresses
  are configured.

  This document updates RFC6887.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2014-12-18
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2014-12-17
07 Ted Lemon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-01-22
2014-12-17
07 Ted Lemon Last call announcement was changed
2014-12-17
07 Ted Lemon Last call was requested
2014-12-17
07 Ted Lemon Ballot approval text was generated
2014-12-17
07 Ted Lemon Ballot writeup was generated
2014-12-17
07 Ted Lemon IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-12-17
07 Ted Lemon Last call announcement was generated
2014-12-17
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-12-17
07 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-07.txt
2014-12-16
06 Ted Lemon IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2014-09-18
06 Dave Thaler
> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
>
> Changes are expected over time. …
> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
>
> Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed Standard

> Why is this the proper type of RFC?

Document updates RFC 6887 which is a Proposed Standard

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
>
> Technical Summary

The document specifies the behavior to be followed by a Port Control Protocol (PCP)
client to contact its PCP server(s) when one or several PCP server IP addresses
are configured.

> Working Group Summary
>
>  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>  example, was there controversy about particular points or
>  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>  rough?

Nothing noteworthy.  An earlier version of the doc went through a prior WGLC
and had significant discussion, which resulted in significant changes.  The
resulting version achieved broad consensus and all subsequent versions since
then have been straightforward and non-contentious.

> Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification?

Unknown.  The spec is applicable to all PCP client implementations,
of which several are known.

>  Are there any reviewers that
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>  review, on what date was the request posted?

Dave Thaler, Simon Perreault, and Hassnaa Moustafa are
called out in the acknowledgements section of the document.
The document shepherd (Dave Thaler) did a review for consistency
with the IPv6 address selection RFC (RFC 6724).

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Dave Thaler

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Ted Lemon

> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
> the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
> for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
> the IESG.

Reviewed for technical clarity/completeness, English grammar/readability,
and relationship to RFC 6724.  Also checked id nits.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No concerns.

> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
> took place.

Review for consistency with RFC 6724 already performed by doc shepherd.

> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.

No concerns.

> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

No.

> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Broad agreement across the WG.  For example, the following all concur:
* M. Boucadair (France Telecom) - editor
* Hassnaa Moustafa (France Telecom) - reviewer
* R. Penno (Cisco) - co-author, WG chair
* D. Wing (Cisco) - co-author, editor of base PCP spec
* P. Patil (Cisco) - co-author
* T. Reddy (Cisco) - co-author
* D. Thaler (Microsoft) - WG chair, document shepherd, author of RFC 6724
* Simon Perreault (Jive) - reviewer, editor of other WG documents
* Deng Qin Si (H3C) - reviewer

No dissent occurred during WGLC.

> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

None.

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None applicable.

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?

Yes.

> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
> references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.  All normative references are to RFC.

> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
> If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
> the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward references.

> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
> listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
> part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
> other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
> explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document "Updates" RFC 6887.  This is called out in the title page
header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction.

> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
> section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
> document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
> are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
> Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
> identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
> detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
> allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
> reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

Document shepherd verified that there are no actions for IANA
(e.g., no new or modified registries), and that the IANA Considerations
section states that there are none.

> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
> useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None applicable.

> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
> language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable.  So such sections.

2014-09-18
06 Dave Thaler State Change Notice email list changed to pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection@tools.ietf.org
2014-09-18
06 Dave Thaler Responsible AD changed to Ted Lemon
2014-09-18
06 Dave Thaler IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2014-09-18
06 Dave Thaler IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2014-09-18
06 Dave Thaler IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2014-09-18
06 Dave Thaler Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2014-09-18
06 Dave Thaler Changed document writeup
2014-08-20
06 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-06.txt
2014-08-18
05 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-05.txt
2014-07-21
04 Dave Thaler Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2014-07-21
04 Dave Thaler IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2014-07-20
04 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-04.txt
2014-04-28
03 Prashanth Patil New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-03.txt
2014-02-24
02 Dave Thaler Document shepherd changed to Dave Thaler
2014-02-24
02 Dave Thaler WGLC completed with technical issues raised by Simon Perrault (ticket 67) and Dave Thaler (ticket 68), and editorial issues raised by Hassnaa Moustafa (ticket 66).
2014-02-24
02 Dave Thaler Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2014-02-24
02 Dave Thaler IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call
2014-02-07
02 Dave Thaler Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2014-02-07
02 Dave Thaler IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2014-01-06
02 Prashanth Patil New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-02.txt
2013-10-21
01 Dave Thaler IETF WG state changed to WG Document from WG Document
2013-10-21
01 Dave Thaler Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.
2013-05-22
01 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-01.txt
2012-11-20
00 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-00.txt