Happy Eyeballs: Success with Dual-Stack Hosts
draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pete Resnick |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Stephen Farrell |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Wesley Eddy |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Harrington |
2012-01-04
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2012-01-03
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2012-01-02
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2012-01-02
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2012-01-02
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-01-02
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2012-01-02
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-26
|
07 | Ron Bonica | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup. |
2011-12-26
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-21
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sandra Murphy. |
2011-12-21
|
07 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Peter Saint-Andre has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2011-12-20
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-07.txt |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot discuss] Updated to reflect discussion among the authors, WG chairs, and AppsDir reviewer. Major Issue #1: Scope limited to TCP. The new text is … [Ballot discuss] Updated to reflect discussion among the authors, WG chairs, and AppsDir reviewer. Major Issue #1: Scope limited to TCP. The new text is good. Cleared. Major Issue #2: Why Standards Track? Waiting on feedback from Pete Resnick. Minor Issue #1: Preferred address family. The new text is good. Cleared. Minor Issue #2: Where algorithm is meant to be implemented. Working toward consensus on new text. Waiting on feedback from authors. Minor Issue #3: Description of implementation work. The new text is good. Cleared Minor Issue #4: Use of cache for debugging. The new text is good. Cleared. Minor Issue #5: Timing recommendations. The new text is good. Cleared. Minor Issue #6: WEBSEC review? Not explicitly completed, but OK. Cleared. Minor Issue #7: Caching of results. Some confusion about whether to mention caching in the example, or remove it altogether. Waiting on feedback from authors. |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from Informational |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-15
|
07 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by IESG Secretary |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot discuss] I would now like to DISCUSS why this document has been moved to Informational from Standards Track. As written, I think it is … [Ballot discuss] I would now like to DISCUSS why this document has been moved to Informational from Standards Track. As written, I think it is inappropriate for Informational. |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Discuss from No Objection |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-15
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
2011-12-14
|
07 | David Harrington | [Ballot comment] I've cleared |
2011-12-14
|
07 | David Harrington | [Ballot discuss] |
2011-12-14
|
07 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Harrington has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot comment] |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Wesley Eddy has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from Proposed Standard |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Please consider the editorial comments suggested by Sandy in here secdir review: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03016.html |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-14
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-13
|
07 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-13
|
07 | David Harrington | [Ballot discuss] 1) should this be informational since it is now only a list of requirements? |
2011-12-12
|
07 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-11
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I really think this document should have had a co-author in the apps area. It is written exceedingly "thinly" and doesn't really understand … [Ballot comment] I really think this document should have had a co-author in the apps area. It is written exceedingly "thinly" and doesn't really understand some of the application implementation issues. That said, I still think it is valuable and worth publishing (and hopefully updating in the future). Though it is a bit this for the standards track as it is now, I see the potential to fill this in over time with more proscriptive information, and therefore I don't object to go it going on the standards track now in anticipation of that. Some issues to consider for this go-round: 3.1 - This has nothing to do with URIs. It is about hostnames. Hostnames used that don't appear in URIs have exactly the same issues. 4. - Though using SYN and ACK in the diagram is fine, I recommend using words like "connection attempt" in the descriptive text. SYN and ACK are probably not as familiar to application layer folks, and since this is aimed at them, it is likely better to use the application layer terminology. Furthermore, there is a performance/resource impact to making a "connection attempt" that an apps person will understand that they might not if it is understood as only an additional packet. I agree with Stephen's concerns regarding "MUST cache". There are valid reasons to try v6 later even if v4 succeeds first, but those reasons must be carefully considered and understood. That sounds like a SHOULD. 4.1 - The first few paragraphs strike me as introductory material, not part of the alogirthm requirements. 4.2. - "SHOULD do so every 10 minutes" I think instead you mean "SHOULD do so no more frequently than every 10 minutes". It's perfectly fine to do so every 20 minutes, or once a day. 4.3. - DNA does not describe how applications (which are the ones who are going to implement Happy Eyeballs) are to be notified of these changes. Though I agree that a Happy Eyeballs app should be able to ask its host to do a DNA for it (or more to the point, get notifications from the host), that's an additional requirement on these apps and should be noted. |
2011-12-11
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-11
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I understand why improving IPv6 experience in dual stack deployments is valuable to the IETF in promoting migration to IPv6. For that reason, … [Ballot comment] I understand why improving IPv6 experience in dual stack deployments is valuable to the IETF in promoting migration to IPv6. For that reason, publication of this document may be beneficial and encourage implementations to include more flexible selection algorithms such as that described in this document. However, I don't see anything in this document that impacts interworking, so I don't see why it is Standards Track. |
2011-12-11
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-09
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Two hopefully quick questions, not sure if the answers will lead to changes or not: (I didn't see any change in -06 related … [Ballot discuss] Two hopefully quick questions, not sure if the answers will lead to changes or not: (I didn't see any change in -06 related to these nor any response email so I'll hold the discuss for now. Sorry if I've missed something.) #1, p5, last para, says the client "MUST cache that information" but doesn't say what information (the IP addresses, the DNS name) nor for how long (DNS TTL? browser session?). Is it ok to not specify this? #2, section 4.3 says SHOULD re-initialise on a new connection. If I have two interfaces (e.g. WiFi and GSM) and one of them is thrashing up and down continually, are you saying that the happy eyeballs state on the other interface SHOULD also be re-initialised or not? Maybe s/host/interface/ or some other change would be better if not, or make it clear that you do want state for both interfaces to be re-initialised if that's the case. |
2011-12-08
|
07 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot comment] Much as I love XMPP, I would change "xmpp clients" to "IM clients". |
2011-12-08
|
07 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot discuss] The Apps Directorate review by Murray Kucherawy on 2011-11-26 raised two major technical issues and eight minor technical issues. These issues merit a … [Ballot discuss] The Apps Directorate review by Murray Kucherawy on 2011-11-26 raised two major technical issues and eight minor technical issues. These issues merit a response. The review can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg03819.html |
2011-12-08
|
07 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-12-08
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-06.txt |
2011-11-30
|
07 | David Harrington | [Ballot discuss] 1) should thi sbe informational since it is now only a list of requirements? 2) 5.6 should say why the A6 should not … [Ballot discuss] 1) should thi sbe informational since it is now only a list of requirements? 2) 5.6 should say why the A6 should not be queried. |
2011-11-30
|
07 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-11-29
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-11-29
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Telechat date has been changed to 2011-12-15 from 2011-12-01 |
2011-11-28
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] Wes raises an interesting point, the draft needs to discuss connectionless transport protocols. |
2011-11-28
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-11-26
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - I agree with Wes' discuss - p7 says there will be "less and less IPv4 traffic" but that doesn't follow. E.g. absolute … [Ballot comment] - I agree with Wes' discuss - p7 says there will be "less and less IPv4 traffic" but that doesn't follow. E.g. absolute amounts of IPv4 traffic could still increase even if IPv4 is decreasing proportional to IPv6. I think you could lose that entire paragraph and the following one, which only seem to be there to justify the "Thus," in the last para of 4.1. |
2011-11-26
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Two hopefully quick questions, not sure if the answers will lead to changes or not: #1, p5, last para, says the client "MUST … [Ballot discuss] Two hopefully quick questions, not sure if the answers will lead to changes or not: #1, p5, last para, says the client "MUST cache that information" but doesn't say what information (the IP addresses, the DNS name) nor for how long (DNS TTL? browser session?). Is it ok to not specify this? #2, section 4.3 says SHOULD re-initialise on a new connection. If I have two interfaces (e.g. WiFi and GSM) and one of them is thrashing up and down continually, are you saying that the happy eyeballs state on the other interface SHOULD also be re-initialised or not? Maybe s/host/interface/ or some other change would be better if not, or make it clear that you do want state for both interfaces to be re-initialised if that's the case. |
2011-11-26
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-11-23
|
07 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot comment] It may be worth mentioning at some point that in the "race" between an IPv4 and IPv6 SYN that the IPv6 SYN can … [Ballot comment] It may be worth mentioning at some point that in the "race" between an IPv4 and IPv6 SYN that the IPv6 SYN can be at a disadvantage due to potential tunneling causing an even less efficient path to be taken than the one that the IPv4 packet takes. |
2011-11-23
|
07 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot discuss] This is good and important work, and I will change to "Yes", if one simple item can be addressed. There's an implicit assumption … [Ballot discuss] This is good and important work, and I will change to "Yes", if one simple item can be addressed. There's an implicit assumption that applications are using connection-oriented transport (e.g. TCP or SCTP), and there isn't clear discussion of whether the technique is applicable or not to applications that use connectionless transport (e.g. it would at least have different considerations for applications using a stateful stream of UDP packets versus those that only use a request-response message pattern and don't keep much state between transactions). |
2011-11-23
|
07 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-11-10
|
07 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-11-09
|
07 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
2011-11-04
|
07 | Miguel García | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Miguel Garcia. |
2011-11-02
|
07 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig |
2011-11-02
|
07 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig |
2011-11-01
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Miguel Garcia |
2011-11-01
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Miguel Garcia |
2011-10-28
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
2011-10-28
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
2011-10-28
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-12-01 |
2011-10-28
|
07 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2011-10-28
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot has been issued |
2011-10-28
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-10-27
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2011-10-27
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Happy Eyeballs: Success with Dual-Stack Hosts) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to consider the following document: - 'Happy Eyeballs: Success with Dual-Stack Hosts' as a Proposed Standard 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 2011-11-10. 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 When the IPv4 server and path is working but the IPv6 server or IPv6 path is down, a dual-stack client application experiences significant connection delay compared to an IPv4-only client. This is undesirable because it causes the dual-stack client to have a worse user experience. This document specifies requirements for algorithms that reduce this delay, and provides an example algorithm. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2011-10-27
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Last Call was requested |
2011-10-27
|
07 | Ron Bonica | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested. |
2011-10-27
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-10-27
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-10-27
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-10-27
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Last Call text changed |
2011-10-27
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-05.txt |
2011-10-11
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-10-10
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Fred Baker. Yes, I believe that it is ready for IESG consideration. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had extensive review, prototyping, and multiple implementations in different browsers. I think the problem and the proposed solution are well understood. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? I would not object to a security or operational review. That said, I don't think that the procedure carries significant security or operational issues. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. We are not aware of issues, IPR or otherwise. (1.e) 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? There is wide consensus behind this document. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ ). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? idnits raises two issues: ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3363 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-websec-origin-04 The latter is due to the fact that draft-ietf-websec-origin has been updated. The RFC 3363 issue relates to the representation of an address in the draft. That can be moved to "informative" if the IESG asks (I asked and it didn't happen :-). (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. No (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? Yes (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? There are none (1.k) 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 When the IPv4 server and path is working but the IPv6 server or IPv6 path is down, a dual-stack client application experiences significant connection delay compared to an IPv4-only client. This is undesirable because it causes the dual-stack client to have a worse user experience. This document specifies requirements for algorithms that reduce this delay, and provides an example algorithm. Working Group Summary v6ops considered this carefully, and tested various possible implementations of the solution. Document Quality The document appears to be of high quality per the numerous reviews received. |
2011-10-10
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-10-10
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Fred Baker (fred.baker@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added |
2011-10-10
|
07 | Fred Baker | WGLC Completed 9 October. Sent to IESG 10/10/2011 |
2011-10-10
|
07 | Fred Baker | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2011-09-22
|
07 | Fred Baker | Happy Eyeballs has been through various implementations and rewriting in response to them. It is now in WGLC. |
2011-09-22
|
07 | Fred Baker | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2011-09-14
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-04.txt |
2011-07-11
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-03.txt |
2011-05-25
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-02.txt |
2011-03-14
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-01.txt |
2011-03-03
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-00.txt |