Re: [apps-review] [apps-discuss] APPS Area review: draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs

SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 26 November 2011 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A198B21F8B25 for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:18:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BOBxGUiaR4VL for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:18:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C0F21F8B24 for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:18:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.239.161]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAQIINAO014379; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:18:28 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1322331510; bh=FTJqGTjlbnMu7q11m3Cz2XDIXWY=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=G2Bn6IcMSaFvEEeGo/wwwwUIYRnQhuEKuu/qst/UWRBybQRwlWqlvO9K+/hRP5abn gQitq39FPdZDIzPSwKX6vx1OsTNk9H0v+bVTsA0nXy9ybZJ+da6qsTNbUH5XNj1irJ meovG/D+D3ovvLjSgdiq58HvdoIDP8PKV/TYXKoo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111126100344.0ce853a8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:13:46 -0800
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
From: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15242@EXCH-C2.corp.cl oudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15242@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: apps-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-review] [apps-discuss] APPS Area review: draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs
X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Apps Area Review List <apps-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:18:48 -0000

Hi Murray,
At 01:06 26-11-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs
>Title: Happy Eyeballs: Success with Dual-Stack Hosts
>Reviewer: Murray S. Kucherawy
>Review Date: November 25-26, 2011

Thanks for doing the review.

>3) Is Section 5.6 necessary?  If A6 records were already busted to 
>Experimental, it seems like this gives them needless attention.  To 
>that end, perhaps this document (or a different one from v6ops) 
>should declare A6 Historic.

There was a discussion [1] in the DNSEXT WG about moving A6 resource 
records to Historic.

Best regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14615.html