Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-vyncke-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-cookie

From: Mark ZZZ Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 03:45:32 +0000 (UTC)

Hi Eric,

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email-masked]>
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <[email-masked]>; Fred Baker (fred) <[email-masked]>; "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, 28 February 2015, 0:21
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-vyncke-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-cookie

Mark, Dan and Ray

Thanks a lot for your comments. BTW, this is kind of an 'old' draft
presented in Honolulu.

Brain Carpenter brought my attention to section 8.2 of RFC 6883 "IPv6
Guidance for Internet Content Providers" which summarizes the same issue
in one single paragraph. So, I am not sure whether this specific I-D
should continue? On one side, it is repetition but on the other it makes
this issue glaring and much more visible.

/ Reviewing the paragraph that Brian pointed out and your -00 version again, I think there is value in having both. I see RFC 6883 as a high level guidance document, identifying and summarising all related issues to providing content over IPv6, where as your document is providing more lower level details of one of the specific issues identified in RFC 6883.

I've found that it is commonly useful enough to have a high level understanding of a particular issue to be able to make value judgements on the method or to identify likely causes of problems before investing time in the details. Having the details available is of course useful if you have to invest time in the details. In other words, the audience for RFC 6883 might not always be the same as the audience for your ID.

Regards,
Mark.

Anyway, I am updating it with your comments (and others) then upload it.

Regards and thanks

-éric

On 12/02/15 04:08, "Mark ZZZ Smith" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I think this is a good draft, and I agree with what it says, however I
>think perhaps it really belongs in the httpbis working group, as they're
>the HTTP experts?
>
>The only other thought I've had is that it might be worth documenting
>that MPTCP shouldn't suffer from this problem as if an application cares
>about IP addresses, then only the first subflow's IP addresses are
>exposed to the application, even if a later subflow uses a different
>address family. There may be a little confusion in this area as MPTCP and
>HE might appear to be fairly similar at face value (and I think HE
>techniques applied to initial MPTCP subflow setup might improve the MPTCP
>establishment performance.).
>
>Regards,
>Mark.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Sent: Wednesday, 11 February 2015, 23:47
>Subject: [v6ops] new draft: draft-vyncke-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-cookie
>
>A new draft has been posted, at
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vyncke-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-cookie.
>Please take a look at it and comment.
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops