Protocol Action: 'PCP Server Selection' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-10.txt)

The IESG <> Mon, 26 January 2015 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B551A70FE; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:22:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YjbvX4cBNj5p; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:22:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179C91ACD38; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'PCP Server Selection' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-10.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:22:36 -0800
Archived-At: <>
Cc: pcp mailing list <>, pcp chair <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:22:55 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'PCP Server Selection'
  (draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-10.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Port Control Protocol Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ted Lemon and Brian Haberman.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

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.

Document Shepherd: Dave Thaler
Responsible Area Director: Ted Lemon