Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs
GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Wed, 16 December 2015 07:14 UTC
Return-Path: <phdgang@gmail.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 24CD61A21BF; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:14:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 5qu_g32U-_iw; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x234.google.com (mail-ig0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27FEC1A01D6; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-x234.google.com with SMTP id mv3so122950172igc.0; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:14:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=tINrEFq4To3PUuSZhRDfF0EkM0DgXNAEW6InJfRyKbY=; b=iyx3qmpKYFxNdz+Zom7uMi35KaW+bDQUkiiPsY6hHHcNyDCVnrZnVACfulK/CmXY+u CzW/Gvd1CVtRbb5xj1TWDbWuuSDpZ1NXgX9zaphBZggS/Sc535PqMQi7KbUl96r1Uwi1 QhEf0ECYImzP5MzauXizHFOy/B2N4d9TUHPvtAV0nKeCGQ7JsBteK0hfuVbZGP05CpMO EJTCtq6IOzgtG/AEla7uytImd3fR861fL9IL6gqRnekeaBfAHQeo/YEp4i1NDnrMes7S HoePBK2hci6PNZlfJq0iPAV6FOQ/x+kKkTsH4abL9y8k4OnPvo9nLb+VuWEgqE/TnQS1 z+GQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.168.203 with SMTP id e72mr154238ioj.96.1450250088594; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:14:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.154.3 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:14:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADZyTkkLBKcAxGPLn_kqW6MpuHeqtt+rc0m1YAoxSMe-isTxdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <COL125-W388E68C8AD20C9B7D7BFC4B1080@phx.gbl> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1512081338010.20919@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAM+vMEScbwr6gs1g7xmaXEH4BmnL5oJxzbTcwYeNEta8kB74Mg@mail.gmail.com> <CADZyTkkLBKcAxGPLn_kqW6MpuHeqtt+rc0m1YAoxSMe-isTxdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:14:48 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMEQ+fO-5yP7nfDVv7C2FVWSNTHguQS1hLUv2DqqonLEB_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/xRVmKAUPTyIeQJ2__HTa2f7W2W0>
Cc: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension@ietf.org, Margaret <margaretw42@gmail.com>, Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com>
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: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 07:14:52 -0000
2015-12-16 3:00 GMT+08:00, Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>: > 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. Thank you, Daniel. Please see my reply inline. > > 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/ Agree. I have updated in my local copy. > > 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. Good suggestion. I add new terminology section. For the completeness, the new section will mention both HE and HE-MIF. <section title="Terminology"> <t>This document makes use of following terms:</t> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>Happy Eyeballs (HE): it specifies requirements [RFC6555] for algorithms that reduce user-visible delay of dual-stack hosts within a single home. </t> <t>HE-MIF: it adopts HE methodology to the multiple provisioning domain architecture. It describes requirements for algorithms that offer connectivity tests to the PVD-aware and non-PVD-aware nodes [RFC7556].</t> </list></t> </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. I edit the sentence as follows: [OLD] A MIF node has both 3/4G and WiFi interface. When the node enters a WiFi area, a common practice would always prefer WiFi because it' cheap and fast-speed normally. [NEW] Assuming a MIF node has both 3GPP mobile network interface and WiFi interface, a common practice would always prefer WiFi connection when the node enters a WiFi area. > > 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/ Those have been corrected. thank you. > > """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. The sentence in the draft doesn't conflict with your thoughts. It may get clear if change some words. [OLD] For instance, they may prefer to wait a little bit of time but not forever. [NEW] For instance, they may prefer to wait an appropriate time slot but not forever. > """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. As you mentioned, the user may accept an appropriate time slot to wait on wifi connection. Once the time slot is expired, the user likely switch over to 3G/4G path to get connection. This sentence intend to say this time slot can't set too short, as user likely gives several tries on free wifi. I try to make following changes. [OLD] After the timer is expired, users would finally give up the WiFi path and try to establish connection over 3G path. Users may won't want the wait time too short, because the 3G path for most people is more expensive than WiFi path. [NEW] After the timer is expired, users may finally give up the WiFi path and try to establish connection over 3GPP mobile network path. Users may not want a very short timer, because the mobile network path for most people is more expensive than WiFi path. An appropriate timer is desired to balance user experience and expenditure. > 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. You may suggest to not limited to specific OS implementation if I understand correctly. This draft doesn't mandate any implementation, it's just a example. The draft could change the description similar with RFC7556 "In current implementations, some nodes already implement this, e.g., by trying to reach a dedicated web server (see [RFC6419])." > 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. Captive portable is the major use case. I'm unable to figure out a good way to avoid the restriction. It's much appreciated if you have good texts added to the draft. > """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.""" The parameters in the soft set is defined in section 3. I will the reference like [NEW] """The soft set parameters defined in section 3 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 "(". > That will be modified many thanks BRs Gang > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:39 AM, GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Mikael, >> >> Many thanks for the comments. >> >> 2015-12-08 20:45 GMT+08:00, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>: >> > 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: swmike@swm.pp.se >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > mif mailing list >> > mif@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mif mailing list >> mif@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif >> >
- [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs GangChen
- Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs Daniel Migault
- Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs GangChen
- Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs Zhen Cao
- Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs GangChen
- Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs Liubing (Leo)
- Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs GangChen
- Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs Zhen Cao
- Re: [mif] WGLC for MIF happy eyeballs maxpassion