IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-01 - respond by July 4

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 26 June 2013 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5062221F9AE5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0bn4hDoAy52h for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22d.google.com (mail-qa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F2621E80BB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id ci6so1658599qab.11 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=cxEPv0t9s2ucvkrnpdArTF6LML4KAz2SrxKLqXMaAec=; b=w21tURl6Tmrv9xX10hw8NUYgYddquXPOEx5OplnuxPZ6DiGhvd4ZUv2gtisD8I0+vv aOQYMi5A9HeXAge2CznlWAszL6RBAMW+NRYbs7nOgI8H65D/yEPTKgj1LR9mIckhqf/N xdglKpLD3dgLKrSlzHi1TkGlAZ2ELvH2laAz3n7gCsfzkvi5UjoTUF92rVObrLFTAmfP makLUVJikY9N1LXpDfEnXms/2JHHHyq939zQF7vpnGBhTSxZSjvXtnpUFOnPny7IcdMv 38vflGmWucUrNGUEtb6nwDATF0doGcx0W5KwBkMEB+GFe1Mb9OKUH3iyXq2uDBd/FEMd SDeQ==
X-Received: by 10.224.80.4 with SMTP id r4mr6096347qak.63.1372258646510; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.134] (c-24-62-231-127.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.62.231.127]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gn4sm33751553qab.8.2013.06.26.07.57.24 for <dhcwg@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751EC6FF@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:57:24 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B69FEA66-EB6D-4EC5-8C54-C1FA1FB1F40D@gmail.com>
References: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806E7DAB304@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <51C31065.8040804@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751E2D82@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <D8248E5E-A333-4C6D-AA43-711A4E99C852@gmail.com> <51C32C73.1010203@gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E185A9B6F@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <90C4B43B-4EF6-40DD-A5F1-DBF82402F191@gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E185AC7F1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <1DF6792F-30B9-4C38-808C-DD6D1D37A099@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751EC6FF@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-01 - respond by July 4
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:57:32 -0000

On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:44 AM 6/26/13, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> <no hat>
> 
> I think it's relatively harmless to leave power saving behavior as unspecified.   I don't think we have data to support an assertion as to how long the client should leave the radio on, and in the absence of data, we'd be more likely to do harm than good.

Is there any chance some diligent specification compliance organization will interpret the current unspecified behavior as "the client MUST continue to listen actively"?

I don't think so; just making sure the question is asked explicitly.

- Ralph

>

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status