Protocol Action: 'PCP Third Party ID Option' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option-08.txt)

The IESG <> Wed, 09 March 2016 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95A712E0B6; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:13:35 -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 Third Party ID Option' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option-08.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.16.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:13:35 -0800
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,,, The IESG <>,,,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:13:37 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'PCP Third Party ID Option'
  (draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option-08.txt) as Proposed Standard

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

The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Terry Manderson.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

   This document describes a new Port Control Protocol (PCP) option
   called THIRD_PARTY_ID.  It is designed to be used in combination with
   the THIRD_PARTY option specified in RFC 6887 but can also be used
   without it.  The THIRD_PARTY_ID serves to identify a Third Party in
   situations where a third party's IP address contained in the
   THIRD_PARTY option does not provide sufficient information to create
   requested mappings in a PCP-controlled device.

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 


Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 

Yes, one implementation

Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? 

None besides the one implementation notes above.

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? 

Dave Thaler


  Who is the Document Shepherd? 

Reinaldo Penno

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Brian Haberman <>