Integrity Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)
RFC 6622
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
I concur with Stephen Farrell's thorough analysis.
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I really think you're doing the wrong thing with two registries (see below). However, it could work so I'll leave it at that if I've not managed to convince you to change it. I also think the change to key identifiers ought be brought to the WG list for checking. I'm going to assume that the authors, WG chairs and AD will ensure that we're doing the right thing here and not breaking anyone's code on them without saying first on the WG mailing list. There are a few occurrences of "signed" that might be better worded after the Signature->ICV terminology change.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
minor nit - TLVs is plural of "Type-Length-Value" not "Type-Length-Value structure" and expansion is NOT REQUIRED It's a bit confusing putting a mini-IANA section in the Intro. Section 13 after "This specification requests" a number of the terms defined are not used in the document.
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection