Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-01.txt> (TLV Naming in the MANET Generalized Packet/Message Format) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:33:27 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG
(manet) to consider the following document:
- 'TLV Naming in the MANET Generalized Packet/Message Format'
  <draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-01.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2015-05-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   TLVs (type-length-value structures) as defined by RFC5444 have both a
   type (one octet) and a type extension (one octet), together forming a
   full type (of two octets).  RFC5444 sets up IANA registries for TLV
   types, specifying that an allocation of a TLV type entails creation
   of an IANA registry for the corresponding type extensions.

   In some cases, reserving all 256 type extensions for use for a common
   purpose for a given TLV is meaningful, and thus it makes sense to
   record a common name for such a TLV type (and all of its type
   extensions) in the corresponding IANA registries.  An example of such
   is a LINK_METRIC TLV Type, with its type extensions reserved for use
   to be indicating the "kind" of metric expressed by the value of the
   TLV.

   In some other cases, there may not be 256 full types that share a
   common purpose and, as such, it is not meaningful to record a common
   name for all the type extensions for a TLV type in the corresponding
   IANA registries.  Rather, it is appropriate to record an individual
   name per full type.

   This document reorganizes the naming of already allocated TLV types
   and type extensions in those registries to use names appropriately.
   It has no consequences in terms of any protocol implementation.

   This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines from RFC5444,
   so as to establish a policy for consistent naming of future TLV type
   and type extension allocations.  It makes no other changes to
   RFC5444.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.