Subject: Protocol Action: 'DHCP Options for the Port Control Protocol (PCP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-13.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 05:41:27 -0700

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'DHCP Options for the Port Control Protocol (PCP)'
  (draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-13.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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp/

Technical Summary:

This document specifies DHCP (IPv4 and IPv6) options to configure
hosts with Port Control Protocol (PCP) Server IP addresses.  The use
of DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 depends on the PCP deployment scenario.

Working Group Summary:

There was controversy around the use of IP address vs hostnames vs
strings passed to getaddrinfo (which could be hostname or IP literal).
The WG eventually achieved rough consensus on the IP address mechanism
recommended by Ted Lemon, referencing [I-D.ietf-dhc-topo-conf] informatively
for discussion on how various scenarios can still be solved using that
mechanism.

Document Quality:

One implementation is documented at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-experiments-00#section-2.9

Other implementations are expected.

Ted Lemon performed DHCP review and raised issues with the previous approach
(strings passed to getaddrinfo).  A significant discussion ensued which 
resulted in Ted authoring draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf for WGs and documents
to reference.  That document was presented to the PCP WG, which then got
consensus on the final approach (IP addresses, and referencing that draft
for discussion of operational guidance).

Personnel:

Dave Thaler is the Document Shepherd.
Ted Lemon is the Responsible Area Director.

RFC Editor Note:

In section 8, please make the following change:
OLD:
   The PCP Server option targets mainly the simple threat model
   (Section 18.1 of [RFC6887]).  It is out of scope of this document to
   discuss potential implications of the use of this option in the
   advanced threat model (Section 18.2 of [RFC6887]).
NEW:
   The PCP server option defined here is applicable when operating
   under the simple threat model (Section 18.1 of [RFC6887]).   Operation
   under the advanced threat model (section 18.2 of [RFC6887]) may
   or may not be appropriate; analysis of this question is out of
   scope for this document.