Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs

[GangChen <[e-mail]>]

Hello Bing,

Thank you for the comments. My reply is inline.


2015-12-18 17:52 GMT+08:00, Liubing (Leo) <[e-mail]>:
> Hi all,
>
> I support moving forward this document as an informational RFC. It provides
> valuable information for application developers to consider.
>
> Minor comments:
> 1) Regarding the document name
> In my mind, I already have the impression that "Happy Eyeballs" mainly
> regarding to IPv4/IPv6 selection; and besides, it is a concrete algorithm
> that machine could behave accordingly. In comparison, this document in my
> mind is more like a guidance on "Interface selection" than a concrete
> algorithm, and it doesn't focus on IPv4/IPv6 priority issue.
> But I won't fight for the document naming issue. Just a personal feeling. If
> others are ok with the current name, I'm ok too.

Just state my thought:
Several major considerations, such as connectivity testing and fastest
path selection, are derived from happy eyeballs.
Adoption in the document title intends to describe a view of
documented mechnism as heuristic as possible.

> 2) Section 5
> In this section, there are two implementation approaches provided. One is
> application internal implementation, which requires no additional API work;
> the other is the enhanced MIF-API.
> The two approaches seem more or less contrary to me. So, the section 5 seems
> like an open question, that which approach is better. Does this document
> have some preference between the two?

The HE-MIF could accomandate those two approaches.
Preference to any specific implementation is going beyond the document scope.
I guess best way is to live in the reality.

>
> 3) Section 6.4
> "Interface changing should only happen at the beginning of
> new session in order to keep flow continuity for ongoing TCP session."
> There might be always multiple sessions running in a phone at the same time,
> so I guess it would be very difficult to achieve this. So, maybe simply
> saying this is also out of scope.

Thank you for pointing this out.
New texts would be:
"The flow continuity due to interface change is beyond the scope of
this document"

BRs

Gang
>
> Best regards,
> Bing
>
>
> From: mif [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hui Deng
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 9:04 PM
> To: Mikael Abrahamsson
> Cc: Margaret; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs
>
> Apologize for mistake, thanks a lot for Mikael's correct,
>
> Please go with that link
>
> Best regards,
>
> DENG Hui
>
>
>> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 13:45:32 +0100
>> From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> CC: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Some other comments:
>>
>> I would like to see "3/4G interface" replaced with "mobile data
>> interface"
>> or "3GPP interface" or something else.
>>
>> --
>> Mikael Abrahamsson email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>