TLV Naming in the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Generalized Packet/Message Format
RFC 7631
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
- 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.
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection