[pcp] Confirming consensus from WG meetings

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

We got consensus among those at the meetings on the following,
and want to confirm WG consensus on the list, in case there are new
objections raised or folks who were not present in the room at the time.

1) Move THIRD_PARTY out of pcp-base to a separate spec (12 in favor, 2 against)
	This would resolve Stephen Farrell's discuss, allowing the base spec
	to be published quickly.   The alternative would likely take a lot more
	time to address, especially given that we already moved DS-lite
	discussion out of the base spec, and the DS-lite scenario was a key
	motivation for THIRD_PARTY.

2) Add a client-specified per-mapping nonce (no strong objections)
	Belief is this is needed to resolve the transaction ID discuss's.
	WG will not add a transaction id, but will add a per-mapping
	nonce instead.

3) Without having resolved the question of inline vs PANA first, adopt
draft-wasserman-pcp-authentication as a working group document (12 in favor, 3 against)
	This would be the basis of the pcp security document.  Belief is
	that much of the current document is independent of the 
	unresolved question on the table, and the WG draft should
	be agnostic on that question.

4) Adopt draft-bpw-pcp-proxy as WG document (broad consensus
	among those who've read it)

Barring new objections that were not raised at the meeting, we plan to
go forward with the above consensus items.

-Dave