Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient

1. Summary

Mohit Sethi is the Document Shepherd. Suresh Krishnan is the Responsible Area
Director.

This document summarizes the main link-layer techniques and parameters that can
be used for implementing energy-efficient networks with resource-constrained
IoT devices. It also highlights the impact of such techniques on the upper
layer protocols that have been developed at the IETF. This would enable
implementers to fine-tune parameters at higher layers and together with the
link-layer achieve energy-efficient behavior. The document also briefly
provides an overview of energy-efficient tools available when using Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP) at the application layer. Its purpose is to provide
information only, so Informational is the appropriate target status. The
document in its current form meets the quality requirements to be
understandable by the community. All references are identified as either
normative or informational. All normative references are to existing standards
and RFC documents. This document does not change the status of any existing
RFCs. The document has no requests for IANA.

2. Review and Consensus

The first version of this draft was submitted as an individual draft in 2013
with the goal of providing guidelines for implementers of higher layer IETF
protocols . The draft has been presented at several WG meetings of the IETF
(IETF 88, IETF 91) where it received support. The result was confirmed on the
mailing list in March 2014 with support from Ari, Esko and others. Based on
discussion on the mailing list, a section on power saving techniques for
DECT-ULE was added and the section on IEEE 802.15.4e DSME was removed.  There
was a discussion on the list in July 2014 about how detailed and comprehensive
information should be provided for the different link-layer technologies. The
authors decided that the current level is good and there were no objections on
the list. There is consensus in the WG, and the document has received
sufficient review.

3. Intellectual Property
Each author has confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79.

4. Other Points
None.
Back