Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption WGLC

["Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote:
> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption.
> Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested
> wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater
> issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional
> issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the
> list.
>
> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the
> document as well as its content. If you have read the document and
> believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important
> comment to make.
>
>
I have read this draft. I understand the motivation, it is clearly 
written, and I support it.

Minor Suggestions:

I'd reference 4861 in the first sentence of the intro.
s/Routing information is communicated to IPv6 hosts by Router 
Advertisement messages. /Routing information is communicated to IPv6 
hosts by Router Advertisement messages [RFC4861]/

Recommendation 2 is redundant IMHO. THere's no way a router manufacturer 
can really know if the devices it is serving are battery powered devices 
or not (perhaps the subject of another draft e.g. perhaps extension to 
4620 to discover this via NI on creating a new ND cache entry?)

For recommendation 3: the timing recommendations should be more 
concrete, provided rough consensus can be achieved. In order to maximize 
the benefit I'd suggest specifying the upper end of the suggested ranges.

s/Networks that serve battery-powered devices /Routers with network 
interfaces that are known to serve battery-powered devices/



-- 
regards,
RayH
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>