Early Review of draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-09
review-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-09-intdir-early-droms-2016-05-12-00

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-09. These comments were
written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these
comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF
contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments
that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see


http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html

.

In my opinion, the documents lacks - and needs - a clear statement of
purpose.  What result is the document trying to achieve?  Who is the
audience?  How would the audience put the contents of the document to
use?

The document must be edited carefully for english language usage
before publication.  I would consider this issue to be worthy of a
"Discuss" on the document.  I found that the document is unclear in
several areas, which prevented me from understanding the meaning of
that text.  For example, in section 2, does "within a single home."
mean a device in one home or a device with just one interface?  In
section 5.1, does:

 users may dedicatedly prefer a 3GPP
 network interface to seek high-reliability or security benefits even
 to manually turn off WiFi interface.

mean:

 users may turn off a device's WiFi interface to guarantee use of a
 3GPP network interface to assure higher reliability or security.

Some sections seem to make observations about conditions that might
have an influence on an implementation of MIF-HE, but don't have any
actionable guidance for implementors.  This lack of clarity is related
to the lack of a clear statement of purpose for the document.  For
example, in section 5.1:

 The decision on mergence of
 policies may be made by implementations, by node administrators, even
 by other standards investigating customer behavior.  However, it's
 worth to note that a demand from users should be normally considered
 higher priority than from other actors.

I don't see anything in this text that I would consider actionable as
an implementor.

It is unclear where the document explicitly choosing one interface as
"faster".  Section 5.2 includes text about "the outcome of each
connection attempt"; does this text refer to recording the connection
time and using that time as the basis for future interface selection?

How does HE-MIF interact with HE for selecting between IPv4 and IPv6?



Attachment:


signature.asc




Description:

 Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail