Reducing Energy Consumption of Router Advertisements
draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption-03

[Ballot comment]
Just a few minor comments:

- 1: It would be nice to have a very brief summary of the recommendations (even if it's just the fact that the doc makes recommendations) in the introduction.

- 4, 3rd paragraph from end:"the average power budget for
      receiving RAs must be no more than 0.1mA"
Should that be mAH?

-8: There is no reference for RFC 6104.

[Ballot comment]
I'd also like to see a response to the points int he SecDir review, Stephen provided the link already.

Thanks for your work on this draft.

[Ballot comment]
Some editorial proposals from Qin, part of the OPS Directorate review.
Here are a few suggestion and editorial comments:

1.  Section 4, last bullet:

s/ non-general-purpose/ dedicated

2.  Section 5.1, bullet 2 said:

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

which behavior should be enabled? “Responding to Router Solicitations
with unicast Router Advertisements” or the behavior described by bullet 1?
Please make this clear.

3.  Section 5.1, bullet 3:

The word “Section” repeats twice, it is not necessary.
s/see section Section 4/see Section 4

[Ballot comment]
One comment about Section 4.  Router Advertisement frequency:

There are no references to where the power draw numbers are coming from. E.g., it is not clear what real device is taking 5 mA vs 200 mA.

[Ballot comment]

I like this kind of thing, thanks!

Is the implication of 5.1, bullet 1 that devices are listening
but check the RA information before deciding to wake the main
CPU or not? I'd say a reference to some description of that
kind of implementation would be a useful thing to add.

It'd be good to see a response to the secdir review, [1] which
raised a couple of minor points.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06122.html

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Reducing energy consumption of Router Advertisements) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'Reducing energy consumption of Router Advertisements'
  as Best
Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-10-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Frequent Router Advertisement messages can severely impact host power
  consumption.  This document recommends operational practices to avoid
  such impact.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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?

This document, on its title pages, asks to be given BCP status.

(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
sections:

Technical Summary

  Frequent Router Advertisement messages can severely impact host
  power consumption.  This document recommends operational practices
  to avoid such impact.

Working Group Summary

  The concept was originally proposed for IETF 93, and quickly
  finalized.  The concept is itself pretty simple; every message
  sent or received by a wireless interface consumes power. Various
  measurements suggest that IPv6 networks can be unnecessarily
  chatty, and specifically WiFi and mobile wireless such as LTE
  suffer from that. This note makes pactical suggestions based on
  operational experience regarding configuration of such.

Document Quality

  This is not a protocol. Multiple respondents have indicated that
  it gives useful operational guidance. No negative feedback was
  given.

Personnel

  Fred Baker is the Document Shepherd.
  Joel Jaeggli is the AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
by the Document Shepherd.

  The document shepherd has been aware of ongoing work by the authors
  regarding the effective deployment ofIPv6 in wireless networks,
  notably at CiscoLive and similar conferences, and in other venues.
  I read the document, and found that it correlated with their
  earlier experience and recommendations. Also, working group
  comments have been supportive.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No.

(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.

  They tell me that they plan no IPR disclosures.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

  No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

  Including the authors and chairs, 20 people commented on the
  initial draft, draft draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast.  Including
  the authors and chairs, 8 commented in the working group last
  call.  Suggestions were made, which were picked up in subsequent
  revisions. There were multiple instances of "I support this draft"
  and no demurring commentary.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.

  There are two URIs in the bibliography, tagged [1] and [2]. I'll
  let the RFC Editor do as they will with them; URIs are not permanent
  and are therefore often not accepted, but I'm not sure what to
  suggest to the authors.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes, including "or URI".

(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?

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section...

  It is present, and it is accurate.