(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?
Proposed Standard. This is appropriate because it describes procedures that hosts should execute
when attached to dual-stack networks. The status is reflected in the 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
Many communication protocols operated over the modern Internet use
host names. These often resolve to multiple IP addresses, each of
which may have different performance and connectivity
characteristics. Since specific addresses or address families (IPv4
or IPv6) may be blocked, broken, or sub-optimal on a network, clients
that attempt multiple connections in parallel have a higher chance of
establishing a connection sooner. This document specifies
requirements for algorithms that reduce this user-visible delay and
provides an example algorithm.
Working Group Summary:
Strong WG consensus was achieved within six months of document introduction.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
The current versions of macOS (Sierra) and iOS (10) implement the Happy Eyeballs V2 spec
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive
issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
Comments were received from Mark Andrews, Mikael Abrahamsson, Jinmei Tatuya, Stephen Strowes,
james woodyatt, Tim Chown and Sander Steffann
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Ron Bonica is the document shepherd
Warren Kumari is the responsible AD
(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.
I re-read the document, re-read each of the mailing list comments and confered with my fellow ADs
to make sure that they read consensus as I did.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews
that have been performed?
(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.
(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.
(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,
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize
any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
[ Update: 2017-09-16 by Warren Kumari -- the authors have informed us that have just learnt that there **may** be some IPR associated with the document, and are talking to their lawyer folk to get clarification ]
[Update: 2017-10-6 by Ron Bonica -- Apple has disclosed IPR. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3077/. This disclosure came after WGLC. ]
(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?
This draft elicitted ~40 messages on the mailing list. Most were supportive, some had technical
concerns that were addressed.
(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
(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.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the
MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document will be reviewed by the General, OPS and Transport Area review teams
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
(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.
This document obsoletes RFC 6555 (Happy Eyeballs V1)
(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).
This memo includes no request to IANA.
(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.
(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