IANA Allocations for Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Protocols
draft-ietf-manet-iana-07

[Ballot comment]
I believe the process issue of responding to Sam Weiler's comments has been addressed so I'm clearly.
I'll let those with real content discusses consider whether this draft should be approved.

It has been pointed out that the WG chair who provided the PROTO writeup and who requested publication is also the document author. We should clarify that when a chair is author the other WG chair needs to operate as chair, and we need to verify that the other chair is okay with this and agrees with judged WG consensus.

[Ballot comment]
I basically agree with other comments and discusses that have been filed.

Having said that, I support the idea of this document and the allocations; but I want to see how the protocols live on that same port number, or some statement that all further protocols will use that port number.

[Ballot discuss]
The phrase "MANET protocols" is meaningful to the authors and the wg participants, but
will be very difficult for readers to sort out.  This document also seems to conflict with
RFC 3561 (a "MANET protocol" by my interpretation!):
          "All AODV messages are sent to port 654 using UDP."
RFC 3626 (OLSR) - another "MANET protocol" - uses port 698.

Does this document override these assignments?  The document should enumerate which
protocols are sharing the UDP port number to be assigned.  Ditto for the addresses.

The security considerations section should address any security considerations that can arise
when MANET protocols share the well-known port and/or addresses, or explain why this
doesn't create any problems.

[Ballot discuss]
Serious comments raised in a secdir review from Sam Weiler have not
received any response from the authors.  These largely overlap with
existing discusses, so I'm only holding a discuss for the process
issue not for the technical content.

[Ballot discuss]
IANA asked for some minor changes:
  >
  > NOTE: The IANA Considerations Section should point back
  > to section 2 or should replicate the request for a Well
  > Known Port.
  >
  The note to the RFC Editor does not include this change.

[Ballot comment]
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 2:
>  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Allocations for the  Mobile
>                  Ad hoc Networks (MANET) Working Group

  Code points aren't allocated to working groups, they are allocated to
  protocols and applications. Suggest to rephrase this in the title,
  abstract and body of the document.

[Ballot discuss]
DISCUSS: Allocation of a well-known (system) UDP port requires at
  least  a specification (see http://www.iana.org/numbers.html; for
  non-IETF requests, even more information would be required; see
  http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl). Although this
  document is standards-track, it contains no such specification and
  also does not normatively cite any such specification. It does mention
  "MANET WG protocols", but it is unclear which of those this port is
  for, and how different MANET protocols can share the same UDP port.

[Ballot discuss]
The only issue I had with the IANA draft is that they're going to all the  trouble to reserve port numbers, but won't consider reserving an IP protocol number.

IANA Additional Comments:

> ***
> NOTE: The IANA Considerations Section should point back
> to section 2 or should replicate the request for a Well
> Known Port.
> ***

I will add this to my list of minor changes.

> http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
>
> sub-registry "WELL KNOWN PORT NUMBERS"
>
>
> Keyword Decimal Description References
> ------- ------- ----------- ----------
> manet [tbd]/udp Manet Protocol [RFC-manet-iana-05]
>

Can this please be revised to show?

manet [tbd]/udp MANET Protocols [RFC-manet-iana-05]

> http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses
>
> sub-registry "224.0.0.0 - 224.0.0.255 (224.0.0/24)
> Local Network Control Block Date registered"
>
> 224.0.0.TBD2 LL MANET Routers [RFC-manet-iana-05]

As per a request during IETF LC, we plan to revise the address name to
be LL-MANET-Routers, to keep DNS happy.


> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses
>
> sub-registry "Fixed Scope Multicast Addresses"
>
> sub-sub-registry "Link-Local Scope"
>
>
> FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:TBD3 LL MANET Routers [RFC-manet-iana-05]

As per a request during IETF LC, we plan to revise the address name to
be LL-MANET-Routers, to make DNS happy.

IANA Last Call Comments:

***
NOTE: The IANA Considerations Section should point back
to section 2 or should replicate the request for a Well
Known Port.
***


Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the "PORT NUMBERS"
registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers

sub-registry "WELL KNOWN PORT NUMBERS"


Keyword Decimal Description References
------- ------- ----------- ----------
manet [tbd]/udp Manet Protocol [RFC-manet-iana-05]


NOTE: The IANA Considerations Section should point
back to section 2 or should replicate the request
for a Well Known Port.


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the "Internet Multicast
Addresses" registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses

sub-registry "224.0.0.0 - 224.0.0.255 (224.0.0/24)
Local Network Control Block Date registered"

224.0.0.TBD2 LL MANET Routers [RFC-manet-iana-05]

Action 3:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the "INTERNET PROTOCOL
VERSION 6 MULTICAST ADDRESSES" registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses

sub-registry "Fixed Scope Multicast Addresses"

sub-sub-registry "Link-Local Scope"


FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:TBD3 LL MANET Routers [RFC-manet-iana-05]

[ NOTE: this registry requires expert review ]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions
for this document.

Proto writeup by Ian Chakeres:

  1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication?

YES.

  2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

YES the ID has been reviewed. NO there is no concern about the reviews.

  3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

NO.

  4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

NO.

  5. How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

STRONG - Several other WG documents contain normative references to this ID.

  6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in  separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

NO.

  7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID Checklist items ?

YES.

  8. Is the document split into normative and informative references?
Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

YES.

  9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard, Informational?)

Proposed Standard.

  10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections:

          * Technical Summary

This document requests IANA allocate a UDP port and link-local multicast addresses (IPv4 & IPv6) for communication between MANET routers.

          * Working Group Summary

Three WG protocols use link-local messaging for coordination among MANET routers. All these protocols will use the IANA allocations laid out in this document. There was discussion of whether site-local multicast addresses should be allocated. The WG decided to not allocate site-local multicast addresses at this time, because they are not required by the current WG documents.

          * Protocol Quality

This document does not define a protocol. It specifies IANA allocations for other WG protocols.