Skip to main content

Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-15

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
15 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sean Turner
2010-12-23
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2010-12-23
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2010-12-23
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-12-22
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-12-21
15 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2010-12-20
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-12-20
15 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-12-20
15 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-12-20
15 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-12-20
15 Amy Vezza Approval announcement text regenerated
2010-12-20
15 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup text changed
2010-12-20
15 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2010-12-19
15 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-15.txt
2010-09-02
15 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Sean Turner
2010-09-01
15 Amy Vezza State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by Amy Vezza
2010-08-30
15 Amanda Baber
IANA has two questions about the IANA actions required upon approval of
this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are seven …
IANA has two questions about the IANA actions required upon approval of
this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are seven
IANA actions that need to be completed.

First, in the Message Types subregistry of the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork
(MANET) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml

a new Message Type must be registered in the 0-233 range:

Type Description Reference
------- ------------------------------------ ---------
TBD HELLO : Local Signaling RFC-to-be

Second, IANA is to create a new "Message-Type-specific Message TLVs for
HELLO messages" subregistry in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET)
Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml

with initial assignments and allocation policies as follows:

+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 128-223 | Unassigned | Expert Review |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+

IANA QUESTION: How should the values 0-127 for the new
"Message-Type-specific Message TLVs for HELLO messages" subregistry be
marked or labeled?

Third, IANA is to create a new "Message-Type-specific Address Block TLVs
for HELLO messages" subregistry in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET)
Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml

with initial assignments and allocation policies as follows:

+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 128-223 | Unassigned | Expert Review |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+

IANA QUESTION: Once again, how should the values 0-127 for the new
"Message-Type-specific Message TLVs for HELLO messages" subregistry be
marked or
labeled?

Fourth, in the Address Block TLV Types subregistry of the Mobile Ad hoc
NETwork (MANET) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml

three new Address Block TLV Types should be registered in the 0 - 127 range.

Type Description Reference
---- -------------------------------------------- ---------
tbd1 LOCAL_IF RFC-to-be
tbd2 LINK_STATUS RFC-to-be
tbd3 OTHER_NEIGHB RFC-to-be

Fifth, IANA is to create a new "LOCAL_IF Address Block TLV Type
Extensions" subregistry in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters
registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml

with initial assignments and allocation policies as follows:

+----------+------+-----------+------------------------+------------+
| Name | Type | Type | Description | Allocation |
| | | extension | | policy |
+----------+------+-----------+------------------------+------------+
| LOCAL_IF | TBD1 | 0 | Specifies that the | |
| | | | network address is | |
| | | | associated with this | |
| | | | local interface of the | |
| | | | sending router | |
| | | | (THIS_IF = 0) or | |
| | | | another local | |
| | | | interface of the | |
| | | | sending router | |
| | | | (OTHER_IF = 1) | |
| LOCAL_IF | TBD1 | 1-255 | Unassigned | Expert |
| | | | | Review |
+----------+------+-----------+------------------------+------------+

Sixth, IANA is to create a new "LINK_STATUS Address Block TLV Type
Extensions" subregistry in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters
registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml

with initial assignments and allocation policies as follows:

+-------------+------+-----------+---------------------+------------+
| Name | Type | Type | Description | Allocation |
| | | extension | | policy |
+-------------+------+-----------+---------------------+------------+
| LINK_STATUS | TBD2 | 0 | Specifies the | |
| | | | status of the link | |
| | | | from the indicated | |
| | | | network address | |
| | | | (LOST = 0, | |
| | | | SYMMETRIC = 1, or | |
| | | | HEARD = 2) | |
| LINK_STATUS | TBD2 | 1-255 | Unassigned | Expert |
| | | | | Review |
+-------------+------+-----------+---------------------+------------+

Seventh, IANA is to create a new "OTHER_NEIGHB Address Block TLV Type
Extensions" subregistry in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters
registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml

with initial assignments and allocation policies as follows:

+--------------+------+-----------+--------------------+-----------+
| Name | Type | Type | Description | Allocation |
| | | extension | | policy |
+--------------+------+-----------+--------------------+------------+
| OTHER_NEIGHB | TBD3 | 0 | Specifies that the | |
| | | | network address is | |
| | | | (SYMMETRIC = 1) or | |
| | | | recently was (LOST | |
| | | | = 0) of an | |
| | | | interface of a | |
| | | | symmetric 1-hop | |
| | | | neighbor of the | |
| | | | router | |
| | | | transmitting the | |
| | | | message | |
| OTHER_NEIGHB | TBD3 | 1-255 | Unassigned | Expert |
| | | | | Review |
+--------------+------+-----------+--------------------+------------+

IANA understands that these seven actions are the only actions that need
to be completed upon approval of this document.
2010-08-17
15 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2010-08-17
15 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-08-17
15 Stewart Bryant Last Call was requested by Stewart Bryant
2010-08-17
15 Stewart Bryant State changed to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Stewart Bryant
2010-08-13
15 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-08-12
2010-08-12
15 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-12
15 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-08-12
15 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-08-11
15 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-08-11
15 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-08-11
15 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-11
15 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
In general, I think this document is well-written and clear.  However, I do have a few specific comments.

In section 2, I don't …
[Ballot comment]
In general, I think this document is well-written and clear.  However, I do have a few specific comments.

In section 2, I don't understand the definition of "interface".  Why not use the definition from RFC 2460?

Section 4.1: what is "an address represented by a network address"?  I don't understand the uniqueness properties defined in the first bullet.

Section 4.2: would it be more correct to write that the Information Bases "describe the state of the protocol in a node"?  Do I understand correctly that the first paragraph of 4.2 states that the Information Bases are abstractions and need not be explicitly implemented as described in the doc?  It might be helpful to give a forward reference to Tuples as they are defined later in the document.  Similarly, in section 4.2.1, it might be helpful to give forward references to the definitions of Local Interface Tuples, Removed Interface Address Tuples and 2-hop Tuples.

In section 10.1, I don't understand "A HELLO message which is transmitted periodically SHOULD contain, and otherwise MAY contain [...]"; does it mean that a HELLO message that is not transmitted periodically "MAY contain"?

Section 18: s/repository/registry/ ?
2010-08-11
15 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2010-08-11
15 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
1) The proto write-up did not identify the DOWNREF to RFC 5148 in 1.h/8.  A second IETF LC is necessary to call this …
[Ballot discuss]
1) The proto write-up did not identify the DOWNREF to RFC 5148 in 1.h/8.  A second IETF LC is necessary to call this DOWNREF out.
2010-08-11
15 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
1) The proto write-up did not identify the DOWNREF to RFC 5148 in 1.h/8.  A second IETF LC is necessary to call this …
[Ballot discuss]
1) The proto write-up did not identify the DOWNREF to RFC 5148 in 1.h/8.  A second IETF LC is necessary to call this DOWNREF out.
2010-08-11
15 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Sean Turner
2010-08-10
15 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-08-04
15 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo
2010-07-21
15 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2010-07-21
15 Stewart Bryant Ballot has been issued by Stewart Bryant
2010-07-21
15 Stewart Bryant Created "Approve" ballot
2010-07-21
15 Stewart Bryant State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Stewart Bryant
2010-07-21
15 Stewart Bryant Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-08-12 by Stewart Bryant
2010-07-12
14 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-14.txt
2010-07-12
15 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-07-12
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-13.txt
2010-05-31
15 Stewart Bryant State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Stewart Bryant
2010-05-31
15 Stewart Bryant [Note]: 'Ian Chakeres (ian.chakeres@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Stewart Bryant
2010-03-31
15 Adrian Farrel Responsible AD has been changed to Stewart Bryant from Ross Callon
2010-03-23
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-12.txt
2010-03-19
15 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Shawn Emery.
2010-03-19
15 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-03-17
15 Amanda Baber
IANA questions/comments:

- The Message Types registry does not have a "name" column. Where
should that assignment data go?

- What contents do you want …
IANA questions/comments:

- The Message Types registry does not have a "name" column. Where
should that assignment data go?

- What contents do you want in the newly created Message-Type-specific
sub-registries? Currently they are defined as empty.

- The Address Block TLV Types registry does not have a "name" column.
Where should that assignment data go?

- Section 18.4 seems to combine the registration requests for the
Address Block TLV Types and the sub-registries required by RFC5444.
Can you verify that the actions, as split, are correct?

- Do you want to create a registry for the possible Values of the
LOCAL_IF, LINK_STATUS, and OTHER_NEIGHB TLVs? If not, what is the
action required from Section 18.5?


Action 1 (Section 18.2):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml
sub-registry "Message Types"

Type Description Reference
---- ---------- ---------
TBD HELLO : Local signaling [RFC-manet-nhdp-11]


Action 2 (Section 18.3):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in the following
registry "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters" located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml
create a new sub-registry "HELLO Message-Type-specific Message TLVs"

+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 128-223 | Unassigned | Expert Review |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+

(initial contents are empty)


Action 3 (Section 18.3):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in the following
registry "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters" located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml
create a new sub-registry "HELLO Message-Type-specific Address Block TLVs"

+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 128-223 | Unassigned | Expert Review |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+

(initial contents are empty)


Action 4 (Section 18.4):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml
sub-registry "Address Block TLV Types"

Type Description Reference
---- ----------- ---------
TBD LOCAL_IF [RFC-manet-nhdp-11]
TBD LINK_STATUS [RFC-manet-nhdp-11]
TBD OTHER_NEIGHB [RFC-manet-nhdp-11]


Action 5 (Section 18.4):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in the following
registry "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters" located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml
create a new sub-registry "LOCAL_IF Address Block TLV Type Extensions"

+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 0-255 | Unassigned | Expert Review |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+

Type Description Reference
---- ----------- ---------
0 Specifies that the network address is [RFC-manet-nhdp-11]
associated with a local interfaceof the sending
router
1-255 Available for Assignment [RFC-manet-nhdp-11]


Action 6 (Section 18.4):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in the following
registry "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters" located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml
create a new sub-registry "LINK_STATUS Address Block TLV Type Extensions"

+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 0-255 | Unassigned | Expert Review |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+

Type Description Reference
---- ----------- ---------
0 Specifies the status of the link from the [RFC-manet-nhdp-11]
indicated network address (LOST, SYMMETRIC or
HEARD)
1-255 Available for Assignment [RFC-manet-nhdp-11]


Action 7 (Section 18.4):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in the following
registry "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters" located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/manet-parameters/manet-parameters.xhtml
create a new sub-registry "OTHER_NEIGHB Address Block TLV Type Extensions"

+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 0-255 | Unassigned | Expert Review |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+

Type Description Reference
---- ----------- ---------
0 Specifies that the network address is [RFC-manet-nhdp-11]
(SYMMETRIC) or recently was (LOST) of an
interface of a symmetric 1-hop neighbor of
the router transmitting the message
1-255 Available for Assignment [RFC-manet-nhdp-11]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.
2010-03-06
15 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery
2010-03-06
15 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery
2010-03-05
15 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-03-04
15 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2010-03-04
15 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-03-04
15 (System) Last call text was added
2010-03-04
15 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-03-04
15 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon
2010-03-03
15 Ross Callon State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2010-02-23
15 Cindy Morgan
1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the
Internet Draft (I-D), and in particular, do they believe this I-D is
ready to forward …
1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the
Internet Draft (I-D), and in particular, do they believe this I-D 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 adequately reviewed.

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 we do not have any particular concerns.

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.

During prior review and the WGLC a few issues have been brought
up, some several times. One of these issues is the complexity of the
protocol. For example, a node id not identified by any particular
ID. Another issue that has arisen is operation between instances with
different configurations; and complexity interactions with other
protocols (e.g. OSLRv2 and SMF); and even multiple cooperating or
non-cooperating instances of these protocols.

In spite of some minor controversies, the group has reached consensus
on the NHDP protocol document.

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?

Many other significant WG documents contain a reference to this
ID. Though there has been some small disagreement on a few details
(several described above), the document overall has significant
support.

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 ?

The current document contains several small nits, and the authors are
working to remove during the next revision. These changes should not
affect the technical content of the document.

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 the references are split into normative and informative
references.

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 describes a 1-hop and symmetric 2-hop neighborhood
discovery protocol (NHDP) for mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs).

* Working Group Summary

This document contains information that was originally in OLSRv2. It
was pulled out and generalized, since it can be used in conjunction
with several of the MANET WG protocols - specifically OLSRv2, SMF,
and DYMO.

* Protocol Quality

Several interoperable implementations of NHDP exist, and many are
publicly available. Note: that these implementations are often
bundled with OLSRv2 implementations, as NHDP is a major component of
OLSRv2.
2010-02-23
15 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2010-02-23
15 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Ian Chakeres (ian.chakeres@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
2009-10-26
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-11.txt
2009-07-13
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-10.txt
2009-03-26
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-09.txt
2009-03-09
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-08.txt
2009-01-11
15 (System) Document has expired
2008-07-10
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-07.txt
2008-03-10
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-06.txt
2008-01-19
15 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Shawn Emery.
2008-01-18
15 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery
2008-01-18
15 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery
2008-01-18
15 Samuel Weiler Assignment of request for Early review by SECDIR to Tobias Gondrom was rejected
2007-12-11
15 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom
2007-12-11
15 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom
2007-12-06
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-05.txt
2007-07-03
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-04.txt
2007-05-30
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-03.txt
2007-03-02
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-02.txt
2007-02-13
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-01.txt
2006-06-21
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-00.txt