Document Writeup 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)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard, as noted in the PCP WG charter, since this is a protocol specification with WG consensus. Title page header does say Standards Track. (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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies the behavior of the UPnP IGD (Internet Gateway Device)/PCP Interworking Function. A UPnP IGD-PCP Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF) is required to be embedded in CP (Customer Premises) routers to allow for transparent NAT control in environments where UPnP IGD is used on the LAN side and PCP on the external side of the CP router. 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 unusual. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? 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? But representatives of a number of potential implementations have been involved in authoring and/or reviewing the document. A public implementation is available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpclient/?source=directory. The authors are also aware of other implementations from some CPE vendors that are not yet disclosed publically. The PCP WG has a policy to not send a document until the WG has consensus and there are at least 5 people who have reviewed and ok'ed the document. Many others were involved in reviews of earlier versions, but the WGLC oks came from: Xiaohong Deng Dave Thaler Reinaldo Penno Tiru Reddy Paul Selkirk The above reviewers collectively represent multiple implementations or potential future implementations. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Dave Thaler Who is the Responsible Area Director? Ralph Droms (outgoing), Ted Lemon (incoming) (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. The Document Shepherd: 1) compared the spec against the UPnP-IGD protocol reference to verify that all UPnP-IGD fields were appropriately handled and nothing was missed. 2) reviewed the document for readability 3) reviewed the document from an implementability standpoint (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. No additional review expected. The document does not modify the behavior of, or use messages of, DNS, DHCP, etc. The document does not use text strings, hence no internationalization issues. (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 disclosures filed. (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? The WG as a whole understands it and has consensus on it. The primary points of discussion centered around the fact that PCP is soft state (must be refreshed before expiration) whereas UPnP-IGD is hard state (doesn't expire until deleted), and so proxying between them is only best effort. This is a limitation of UPnP-IGD and the WG has consensus that the document takes a reasonable approach given this underlying limitation. (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 appeals threatened. (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. No errors found, just warnings that are expected. That is, the following are due to the version having being posted in December. == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 19, 2012) is 73 days in the past. Is this intentional? == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review criteria as this is not a MIB, media type, URI type, etc. (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? It only normatively references RFC 2119, and draft-ietf-pcp-base which is currently in AUTH48. (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. No downward normative 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. No change to the status of any existing RFCs. (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). This document makes no request of IANA and the IANA considerations section may be removed on publication. The Document Shepherd verified that the document doesn't need any request of IANA. (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. No new IANA registries needed. (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. No formal language exists in the document to verify.