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

Hello Alejandro,

On 8/27/15, Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

If Lorenzo agrees, I'd opt for removing the sentence about the
frustrated users.

>
>
> 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.

Yeah, looks like this text needs tweaking - both you and Ray has
commented on it, copypasting from my reply to him, so to check with
you:

How about a small tweak as below:

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

--a

>
>
> 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
>
>