Skip to main content

Generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Packet/Message Format

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <>,
    RFC Editor <>, 
    manet mailing list <>, 
    manet chair <>
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:

Ballot Text

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 

   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. 


   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.

RFC Editor Note