Happy Eyeballs Extension for Multiple Interfaces
draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-11

[Ballot comment]
* Section 5.2.1

This section contains a pointer to RFC6419 but it is not clear what part of RFC6419 is being referred to. Can you please add a section number reference.

In current implementations, some nodes already implement this, e.g., by
  trying to reach a dedicated web server (see [RFC6419] )

* Section 5.2.3

It is not clear what the following text means. Can you please clarify and/or reword

  When destination and source pairs are identified, it should be
  treated with higher priority compared to others and choose to
  initiate the connection in advance.

* Section 7.2

What does the following mean?

It should set a reasonable wait time to comfort user
  experience

[Ballot discuss]
* Section 7.5

It is not at all clear how this document interacts with RFC6555 happy eyeballs. Section 5.2.3 looks like it runs RFC6724 to already select a source address. Not sure what more RFC6555 is expected to do here. Can you please clarify.

[Ballot comment]
* Section 5.2.1

This section contains a pointer to RFC6419 but it is not clear what part of RFC6419 is being referred to. Can you please add a section number reference.

In  current implementations, some nodes already implement this, e.g., by
  trying to reach a dedicated web server (see [RFC6419]

* Section 5.2.3

It is not clear what the following text means. Can you please clarify and/or reword

  When destination and source pairs are identified, it should be
  treated with higher priority compared to others and choose to
  initiate the connection in advance.

* Section 7.2

What does the following mean?

It should set a reasonable wait time to comfort user
  experience

[Ballot comment]
In general, I find the recommendations given in the document rather vague. I guess that's mainly because the doc does not specify any concrete parameters/policies but only gives examples. Would it be possible to be more concrete? Also where do I get this information from? The doc mentions a user interfacse... I guess other policies might be specified by the application developer... but how do I get policies and preferences from my operator network? Is the current guidance useful for application developers? Or are they doing these kind of things anyway?

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-10.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: "DENG Hui" , draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension@ietf.org, denghui02@hotmail.com, terry.manderson@icann.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Happy Eyeballs Extension for Multiple Interfaces) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Happy Eyeballs Extension for Multiple Interfaces'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-09-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo proposes extensions to the Happy Eyeball's algorithm
  requirements defined in RFC6555 for use with the multiple
  provisioning domain architecture.  The Happy Eyeballs in MIF would
  make the selection process smoother by using connectivity tests over
  pre-filtered interfaces according to defined policy.  This would
  choose the best interface with an automatic fallback mechanism.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
==>Informational, because it doesn't specify any protocol spec and request
IANA number assignment. and It is indicated in the page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
==>
  This document proposes extensions to the Happy Eyeball(HE) defined in
  RFC6555 and fit into a multiple provisioning domain architecture.
  Happy Eyeballs in MIF would make the selection process smoother by
  using connectivity tests over pre-filtered interfaces according to
  defined policy.  This would choose the most fast interface with an
  automatic fallback mechnism.

Working Group Summary
==>
  The workng group has quite concensus to move forward this document

Document Quality
==>
  Current version number of the document is 09, there have been many good
review of the document.

Personnel
==>
  Hui Deng is the Document Shepherd
  Terry Manderson is the Responsible Area  Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
==> This document explains the real problem and could be implemented
by browser other than operating system, it is well writen
and ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 
==> No


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
==> No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.
==>No Concerns and Issues.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
=> Yes, all of them

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
==>No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 
==> quite concensus

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
==> No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
==> Done, editor will change

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
==> No requirement.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
==> Yes, they have.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
==> No. They are all RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
==> No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
==> No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
==> There is no IANA requrement.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
==> No

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
==> No formal language exists.