IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Fri, 18 December 2015 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D3F1B350D for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:53:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wRJJWudvmzwc for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:53:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4DF51B34C8 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:53:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CFP73434; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:53:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.130) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:52:30 +0000
Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:52:29 +0000
Received: from NKGEML514-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::40a8:f0d:c0f3:2ca5]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:52:22 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs
Thread-Index: AQHRMa41mM9v5phE2Umd5ryGXUF2tJ7Agy0AgAAFJYCAD85hcA==
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:52:21 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2D31582@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <COL125-W388E68C8AD20C9B7D7BFC4B1080@phx.gbl>, <alpine.DEB.2.02.1512081338010.20919@uplift.swm.pp.se> <COL125-W6D4CFF27F96961786421EB1080@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <COL125-W6D4CFF27F96961786421EB1080@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.117]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2D31582nkgeml514mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020203.5673D780.00BB, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 12b6aecffe68fc4208296e569d15ce60
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/ZGvRN0rroZwe_51qPR1d2P4fvU4>
Subject: Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:53:11 -0000

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.

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?


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.

Best regards,
Bing


From: mif [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hui Deng
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 9:04 PM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: Margaret; mif@ietf.org
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: swmike@swm.pp.se<mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se>
> To: denghui02@hotmail.com<mailto:denghui02@hotmail.com>
> CC: mif@ietf.org<mailto:mif@ietf.org>; margaretw42@gmail.com<mailto:margaretw42@gmail.com>
> 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: swmike@swm.pp.se<mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se>

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status