Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Please see my comments for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-07.
I think it is important for the WG to have such a document.

BR,

Daniel

Section Introduction:

"""   In multiple interface context, the problems raised by hosts with
   multiple interfaces have been discussed.  The MIF problem
   statement[RFC6418] described the various issues when using a wrong
   domain selection on a MIF node.  """

I think the first sentence should be removed. It does not bring any
information. In addition, it seems contradicting the second sentence
with one problem and multiple issues.

s/the most fast/fastest/

I assume the goal of the document is describe MIF-HE to adapt the HE
concept to the multiple provisionning domain architecture. If I am correct,
I think it would be good to have it explicitely mentioned.

MIF-HE should be in the terminology section.

I am not an english native speaker, but I guess this sentence should
checked. I also suspect there are multiple nits that should be fixed.

s/A MIF node has both 3/4G and WiFi interface./Assume a MIF node has
both a 3/4 G interface and a Wifi interface/

s/it' cheap/it is cheap/ maybe cheap should be avoided as well.

s/User/The user/

s/got IP/got an IP/

s/users have/the user has/

s/Users may won't want /Users may not want/

"""For instance, they may prefer to wait a little bit of time but not
forever.""" I do not think that is correct. The user may rather accept to
define an appropriate time slot for the node to attend to set a Wifi
connexion.

"""Users may won't want the wait time too short, because the 3G path for
most people is more expensive than WiFi path."""

This sentence is not clear to me. I assume that if 3G/4G is more expensive,
the user is more likely to provide the Wifi more time to set a
communication.

Section 3.

s/Hard set/Hard Set/

Section 4.2

The section mentions a bootstart URL and then enumerates "e.g. Windows
Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 and iOS." I think what you mean is
that the URL may not be standardized but may be specific to each OS. If I
am correct, I do not think that is relevant, since it may be provided by
anyone including the ISPs.

Maybe that is obvious, but I think we shoudl specify that L2 connectivity
has been checked. Otherwise I am not sur ethis is the only possibility. It
could also be a firewall for example in an corporate environment. Maybe it
would be good to specify the assumption that leads to this conclusion, so
if this assumption changes, the document may still be valid. In other
words, we should avoid to hav ethat document bound to such assumption.
Maybe another alternative is to restrict the scope of the draft to captive
portable as it seems this is the main use case addressed.

"""If anything is abnormal, it assumes there is a proxy on the path. """

The following sentence is not clear to me:

"""Parameters in a soft set should considered at this stage."""

s/option[RFC6731]/option [RFC6731]/



"""Those information may weight a
   particular interface to be preferred [one prior] to others sending
   resolving requests."""

There should be a white space before [RFC as well as "(".




On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:39 AM, GangChen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mikael,
>
> Many thanks for the comments.
>
> 2015-12-08 20:45 GMT+08:00, Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>:
> > On Tue, 8 Dec 2015, Hui Deng wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all
> >>
> >> We have two weeks WG last call for below document:
> >>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chen-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-04.txt
> >>
> >> Please send your comments to this thread.
> >> This WGLC will end on Dec. 22nd.
> >
> > The above link is wrong, it links to a 3 year old revision of the
> > document.
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-07
> > seems to be the latest.
> >
> > It's also my opinion that I would not want this document sent off until
> we
> > have decided what to do with the rest of the MIF documents, it's my
> > opinion that the WGLC call is premature. I believe that MIF-HE is
> > important, but I also think we should be more ready with the rest of the
> > architecture before we ship this document off.
>
> It's true to desirably have very clear views of relevant mif documents
> before the send-off. Yet, I still see the chance to collect wglc
> comments considering the follows:
> 1) MIF-HE is not a draft of MPVD cluster.
> 2) wglc is MIF-HE targeted. We seek wg revisiting on the wg product
> quality and fix bugs.
>
> > Some other comments:
> >
> > I would like to see "3/4G interface" replaced with "mobile data
> interface"
> > or "3GPP interface" or something else.
>
> Sure. It will be fixed. thank you.
>
> BRs
>
> Gang
>
> >
> > --
> > Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mif mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>