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 |