Generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Packet/Message Format
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <email@example.com>, RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, manet mailing list <email@example.com>, manet chair <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format' to Proposed Standard The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format ' <draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-18.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and David Ward. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-18.txt
Technical Summary This document specifies a multi-message packet format that may be used by mobile ad hoc network routing and other protocols. Note that several of the MANET protocols have normative references to this document. The document has had significant review and update as a result of comments received during IESG evaluation and Gen-Art review. Working Group Summary The document is used by multiple MANET protocol specifications, and has been reviewed quite carefully. There have been controversy in the working group particularly over ordering of TLVs, and to a lesser extent over efficiency (see PROTO writeup by Ian Chakeres). The document carefully reflects the consensus of the working group obtained after a great deal of discussion. Document Quality The document has received careful review, and is needed for implementation of the protocols that are currently being worked on in the MANET WG. Personnel Ross Callon is the responsible AD, and has reviewed the document (and also had associated conversations with document authors, WG participants and co-chairs). RFC Editor Note Just a question regarding Appendix G, Acknowledgments: Is it normal for Acknowledgements to be in an Appendix? Same question for Contributors (which is currently Appendix F). In my opinion the RFC editor's staff is better able to handle this than I, and I will therefore leave this to your discretion. Thanks.