Skip to main content

TLV Naming in the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Generalized Packet/Message Format
RFC 7631

Yes

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)

No Objection

(Ben Campbell)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Terry Manderson)

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

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -02)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (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.

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (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.

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)