Talk:Port Control Protocol

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Port Control Protocol article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Networking / Security Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Mid-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Lacking context

Someone more familiar with PCP should probably write about how PCP differs from IGDP and NAT-PMP and how PCP was considered necessary. The article as currently authored suggests PCP is a revolutionary technology which evolved in a vacuum; this is far from the truth. 206.186.37.200 (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! That's a very good remark, went ahead and explained briefly the relation between PCP, NAT-PMP and IGDP. Also, did a major cleanup of the article's language. Please check it out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Security section needs work

The security section is clear as mud. I have the CISSP credential and don't understand most of what is being said here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.205.58 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

broken reference - with fix!

the link to the 2nd reference (Dan Wing (December 2011). "Port Control Protocol". The Internet Protocol Journal. Cisco Systems. Retrieved January 31, 2014.) is broken.

after some digging, I found a link to PDF of it: https://ipj.dreamhosters.com/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/ipj14-4.pdf

I tried editing the reference directly but couldn't figure it out. apologies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflefuzzy (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge NATPMP article into the PCP

The PCP is in fact a second version of the NATPMP and in the miniupnpd source code they are processed the same but for the PCP just added some additional steps. The libnatpmp is also supports both protocols but it's name wasn't changed to a libpcp. Even more, the PCP is harder to find so many peoples just saying NATPMP/PCP or simply NATPMP. The original NATPMP article is short and can be easily be represented as a paragraph in the PCP article. How do you think about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokito (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]