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

Hello,
  I fully support this draft, in fact, I believe that all draft should
have a mandatory "Eco-friendly" section.

  My comments:

In section 3 - Consequences

   o  Some hosts simply experience bad battery life on these networks
      and otherwise operate normally.  This is frustrating for users of
      these networks.

  The sentence: "This is frustrating for users of   these networks." 
does not convince me. The impact of a bad battery life is quite big, to
say it's just "frustrating" IMHO is not enough. I think it should be
remove or create a stronger sentence.

In section 4.2:

   2.  Networks that serve large numbers (tens or hundreds) of battery-
       powered devices SHOULD enable this behaviour.

  This might be a dummy question but I wonder if this is automatic or
something that will be adjusted by the administrator (or both). Probably
we could be more specific in this section, I mean, just to be more clear.

Regards,

Alejandro,

El 8/27/2015 a las 8:43 AM, Ray Hunter (v6ops) escribió:
>
>
> fred@cisco.com 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops