[sipcore] Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-01

Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> Sat, 29 November 2014 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <sperreault@jive.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1301E1A017C for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 08:48:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 iv1btsnKaF9g for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 08:47:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com (mail-la0-f45.google.com [209.85.215.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2B5D1A0172 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 08:47:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id gq15so6819231lab.4 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 08:47:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=SDvmOP1afTcHheWZ/fpKrGzPOzO8k/7IvxDfqdPoK6o=; b=SgErLJGChDhOR43i3ceBkmVV5U3DW1feHPIB/LMMifALOjcK9h/PmSM7ZrAx6ld6MH e0qLQZ3Av9Vr0GWoRFWpNpJwLkKEDfrFp5nNbrrOEKcil61UZSxQhl1IN/4zDcOKUv++ 9gts5MaQ78OiKNJ4ko2+F2VBThK8RovTHToiAkiPHD9qWvDkFCHJQzpgfeANEcEuxfvf KxmT5HcNOVZCTiyGlSVYTSWbbhYQH1SNhyqM3+bpsLGa4BA4GWkXnEeY0pLfMw7+etXp 4/sbR5ymV/Wu3Rnrpx5ZycqD3S5HfJnOF/ZhEGV1bn/SBECZcxqq1sJRqaULYcidCPhs VWsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn/Z8c5ITCk8LUBb3BeMQQ7eaByVGJiOTb364gr8R5BCZJOJ+shIcy2JmtTsC2ENjPg2yHT
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.206.67 with SMTP id lm3mr48807989lac.16.1417279676133; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 08:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.84.145 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 08:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 11:47:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CANO7kWALSqB8o8=mJotHfzZUAiiC4hxmie=AHL=4vQTRcMLRCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
To: draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack@tools.ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113494b2a4cd3805090223ea"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/bvqJHA6kLHOE0GamFfeJjN450Qc
Subject: [sipcore] Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-01
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 16:48:01 -0000

All,

In Honolulu I agreed to review this draft. Here's my review!

Simon



Major
=====

- It's not clear to me whether Section 4.1 advocates parallel connections
or not. Is Happy Eyeballs to be applied or not? Or are we not recommending
one way or another? This needs to be made more explicit.

- The guidance in Section 4.2 could benefit from stronger normative
language:

   When indicating address family preference through SRV, IPv4-only and/
   or IPv6-only clients should be prepared to handle SRV record sets
   that don't resolve into an ip address in the address family used by
   that client.  In such a case, the client should simply proceed to the
   next priority and try the hostnames in the alternate address family.


Suggestion: s/should/MUST/g

And please remove the "and try the hostnames in the alternate address
family." part, which makes no sense (a hostname cannot be "in an address
family").


Minor
=====

- Should this draft formally update RFC 3263?

- In section 1, has this been resolved?

   [[TODO: Sync with Vijay Gurbani on impacts of this draft to RFC
6157 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6157>,
   especially relative to the additional requirement that DNS be
   populated such that a certain address family is preferred.]]


- Please remove normative language from section 1 (i.e., the SHOULD in the
last paragraph).

- Section 4.1:

   Happy Eyeballs [RFC6555 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6555>] has
proven that looking up the "A or AAAA
   record" is not an effective practice for dual-stack clients and that
   it can add significant connection delay and greatly degrade user
   experience.


It is not Happy Eyeballs which has proven that, it is experience with
dual-stack. Suggestion: "Experience with dual-stack has proven that...".

- Section 4.1:

      The dual-stack client SHOULD perform an A and AAAA record lookup
      of the domain name and add the respective IPv4/IPv6 addresses to
      the list of IP addresses to be contacted.


Suggested rewording: "A dual-stack client SHOULD perform A and AAAA record
lookups of the domain name and add all resulting IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses
to the list of IP addresses to be contacted."


Nits
===

- In the abstract, add a reference to the Happy Eyeballs RFC.

- Section 4.1:

   Once the transport protocol has been determined, the procedure for
   discovering an ip address


s/ip/IP/