(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.