Reducing Energy Consumption of Router Advertisements
draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption-03
Yes
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-11-17)
Unknown
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.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-11-17)
Unknown
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.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-11-16)
Unknown
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
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-11-17)
Unknown
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
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-11-17)
Unknown
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.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown