TLV Naming in the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Generalized Packet/Message Format
draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-05

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

Search Mailarchive

Alia Atlas Yes

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Ben Campbell No Objection

Benoit Claise No Objection

Comment (2015-05-11 for -03)
- I wonder if this document should only update RFC5444, or all the RFCs that are changed in IANA?
Let's take an example:
 The IANA Registry "Message TLV Types" is changed to Table 1.

          +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
          |   Type  | Description                   | Reference |
          +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
          |    0    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC5497] |
          |    1    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC5497] |
          |   2-4   | Unassigned                    |           |
          |    5    | ICV                           | [RFC7182] |
          |    6    | TIMESTAMP                     | [RFC7182] |
          |    7    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC7181] |
          |    8    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC7181] |
          |  9-223  | Unassigned                    |           |
          | 224-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | [RFC5444] |
          +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+

                        Table 1: Message TLV Types

The current IANA entries for that registry are:
Type 	Description 	Reference
0 	INTERVAL_TIME 	[RFC5497]
1 	VALIDITY_TIME 	[RFC5497]
2-4 	Unassigned 	
5 	ICV 	[RFC7182]
6 	TIMESTAMP 	[RFC7182]
7 	MPR_WILLING 	[RFC7181]
8 	CONT_SEQ_NUM 	[RFC7181]
9-223 	Unassigned 	
224-255 	Reserved for Experimental Use 	[RFC5444]

I guess that, if I would read RFC 5497 and the new registry, the story would be complete since RFC5444 is updated by  draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-RFC-to-be. Anyway, just asking the question so that we doubleckeck. Basically, if Michelle Cotton is fine, I'm fine.

- I agree with Barry regarding the abstract length.

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Comment (2015-05-09 for -02)
The Abstract isn't very abstract -- which is to say it's very long.  Can you let the Introduction do the heavy lifting, and cut the Abstract back to, say, the last two paragraphs with a little editing (to expand "TLV" there and to replace "those registries" with something like "the MANET TLV registries defined in RFC 5444")?

Other than that, I have no comment but that this is a fine thing to do, and it doesn't surprise me that Adrian brought it up.

Terry Manderson No Objection

Kathleen Moriarty No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection