idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5444, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC5444 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC5444, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2006-03-01) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 5, 2015) is 3370 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET) C. Dearlove 3 Internet-Draft BAE Systems ATC 4 Updates: 5444 (if approved) T. Clausen 5 Intended status: Standards Track LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 6 Expires: July 9, 2015 January 5, 2015 8 TLV Naming in the MANET Generalized Packet/Message Format 9 draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-00 11 Abstract 13 TLVs (type-length-value structures) as defined by RFC5444 have both a 14 type (one octet) and a type extension (one octet), together forming a 15 full type (of two octets). RFC5444 sets up IANA registries for TLV 16 types, specifying that an allocation of a TLV type entails creation 17 of an IANA registry for the corresponding type extensions. 19 In some cases, reserving all 256 type extensions for use for a common 20 purpose for a given TLV is meaningful, and thus it makes sense to 21 record a common name for such a TLV type (and all of its type 22 extensions) in the corresponding IANA registries. An example of such 23 is a LINK_METRIC TLV Type, with its type extensions reserved for use 24 to be indicating the "kind" of metric expressed by the value of the 25 TLV. 27 In some other cases, there may not be 256 full types that share a 28 common purpose and, as such, it is not meaningful to record a common 29 name for all the type extensions for a TLV type in the corresponding 30 IANA registries. Rather, it is appropriate to record an individual 31 name per full type. 33 This document reorganizes the naming of already allocated TLV types 34 and type extensions in those registries to use names appropriately. 35 It has no consequences in terms of any protocol implementation. 37 This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines from RFC5444, 38 so as to establish a policy for consistent naming of future TLV type 39 and type extension allocations. 41 Status of this Memo 43 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 44 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 46 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 47 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 48 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 49 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 51 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 52 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 53 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 54 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 56 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2015. 58 Copyright Notice 60 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 61 document authors. All rights reserved. 63 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 64 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 65 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 66 publication of this document. Please review these documents 67 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 68 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 69 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 70 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 71 described in the Simplified BSD License. 73 Table of Contents 75 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 76 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 3.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 3.2. Updated IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 82 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 83 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 85 1. Introduction 87 This document reorganizes and rationalizes the naming of TLVs (type- 88 length-value structures), defined by [RFC5444] and recorded by IANA 89 in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters registries "Packet 90 TLV Types", "Message TLV Types", and "Address Block TLV Types". 92 This document reorganizes the naming of already allocated Packet, 93 Message and Address Block TLV types, and their corresponding Type 94 Extensions, and updates corresponding IANA registries. 96 TLVs have a type (one octet) and a type extension (one octet) which 97 together form a full type (of two octets). A TLV may omit the type 98 extension when it is zero, but that applies only to its 99 representation, it still has a type extension of zero. A TLV type 100 defines an IANA registry of type extensions for that type. 102 There have been two forms of TLV allocation. 104 The first, but less common, form of allocation has been that 105 allocation of the type has immediately defined (but not necessarily 106 allocated) all the corresponding type extensions for versions of that 107 type. This applies, for example, to the Address Block TLV 108 LINK_METRIC specified in [RFC7181]. The LINK_METRIC type extensions 109 are all available for allocation for different definitions of link 110 metric. It is appropriate in this case to apply the name LINK_METRIC 111 to the type, and also to all the full types corresponding to that 112 type, as has been done. Type extensions can then be individually 113 named, or can be simply referred to by their number. 115 The second, more common, form of allocation has been that for a TLV 116 type, only type extension 0, and possibly the type extension 1, are 117 defined. An example is the Address Block TLV LINK_STATUS defined in 118 [RFC6130], where only type extension 0 is allocated. It is not 119 reasonable to assume that the remaining 255 type extensions will be 120 allocated to forms of LINK_STATUS. (Other forms of link status are 121 already catered to by the introduction, in [RFC7188], of a registry 122 for values of the LINK_STATUS TLV.) Thus the name LINK_STATUS should 123 be attached to that specific type extension for that type, i.e., to 124 the full type, and not to the TLV type when used with all other type 125 extensions therefore. This was, however, not done as part of the 126 initial registration of this TLV type. Effectively, this leaves, for 127 the LINK_STAUS TLV type, the type extensions 1-255 either unavailable 128 for allocation (if applying strictly the interpretation that they 129 must relate to a LINK_STATUS), or counterintuitively named for their 130 intended function. 132 The purpose of this document is to change how these names are 133 applied, and recorded in IANA registries, and to provide guidelines 134 and instructions for future TLV type allocations. This is to 135 facilitate the addition of new TLVs using type extensions other than 136 0, but without them having inappropriate names attached. So, for 137 example, LINK_STATUS will become the name of the full type (as 138 composed by the TLV type 3 and the TLV type extension 0), and will 139 cease being the name of the TLV type 3. This leaves the question of 140 how to name the type. As it is not clear what other TLVs might be 141 defined for other type extensions of the same type, it is proposed to 142 leave the type currently unnamed, specified only by number. 144 This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines from 145 [RFC5444], so as to establish a policy for consisteng naming of 146 future TLV type and type extension allocations. 148 For clarity, all currently allocated TLVs in [RFC5497], [RFC6130], 149 [RFC7181] and [RFC7182] will be listed in the IANA considerations 150 section of this document, indicating no change when that is 151 appropriate (such as the LINK_METRIC TLV). The only changes are of 152 naming. 154 Note that nothing in this draft changes the operation of any 155 protocol. This naming is already used, in effect, in [RFC6130] and 156 [RFC7181], currently the main users of allocated TLVs. For example 157 the former indicates that all usage of LINK_STATUS refers to that TLV 158 with type extension 0. 160 2. Terminology 162 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 163 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 164 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 165 [RFC2119]. 167 All references to elements such as packet, message and TLV in this 168 document refer to those defined in [RFC5444]. 170 3. IANA Considerations 172 This document updates the Expert Review evaluation guidelines for 173 Packet TLV Type, Message TLV Type, and Address Block TLV Type 174 allocations, from [RFC5444], and updates the registries for already 175 made allocations to follow these guidelines. 177 3.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines 179 For registration from the registries for Packet TLV Types, Message 180 TLV Types, and Address Block TLV Types, the following guidelines 181 apply, in addition to those given in section 6.1 in [RFC5444]: 183 o If the reguested TLV Type immediately defines (but not necessarily 184 allocates) all the corresponding type extensions for versions of 185 that type, then a common name SHOULD be assigned for the TLV type. 187 o Otherwise, if the reguested TLV Type does not immediately define 188 all the corresponding type extensions for versions of that type, 189 then a common name SHOULD NOT be assigned for that TLV type. 190 Instead, it is RECOMMENDED that: 192 * The "description" for the allocated TLV type be "Defined by 193 Type Extension"; 195 * For Packet TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, created 196 for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Packet TLV Type 197 Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV 198 Type. 200 * For Message TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, 201 created for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Message TLV Type 202 Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV 203 Type. 205 * For Address Block TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, 206 created for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Address Block TLV 207 Type Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of 208 the TLV Type. 210 * That each Type Extension be given a name when allocated. 212 3.2. Updated IANA Registries 214 The following changes all apply to the IANA registry "Mobile Ad hoc 215 NETwork (MANET) Parameters". 217 The IANA registry "Packet TLV Types" is unchanged. 219 The IANA Registry "ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged. 221 The IANA Registry "TIMESTAMP Packet TLV Type Extensions" is 222 unchanged. 224 The IANA Registry "Message TLV Types" is changed to Table 1. 226 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 227 | Type | Description | Reference | 228 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 229 | 0 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | 230 | 1 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | 231 | 2-4 | Unassigned | | 232 | 5 | ICV | [RFC7182] | 233 | 6 | TIMESTAMP | [RFC7182] | 234 | 7 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 235 | 8 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 236 | 9-223 | Unassigned | | 237 | 224-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | [RFC5444] | 238 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 240 Table 1: Message TLV Types 242 The IANA Registry "INTERVAL_TIME Message TLV Type Extensions" is 243 renamed as "Type 0 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 244 Table 2. 246 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 247 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 248 | Extension | | | | 249 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 250 | 0 | INTERVAL_TIME | The maximum time before | [RFC5497] | 251 | | | another message of the | | 252 | | | same type as this message | | 253 | | | from the same originator | | 254 | | | should be received | | 255 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 256 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] | 257 | | | Use | | 258 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 260 Table 2: Type 0 Message TLV Type Extensions 262 The IANA Registry "VALIDITY_TIME Message TLV Type Extensions" is 263 renamed as "Type 1 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 264 Table 3. 266 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 267 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 268 | Extension | | | | 269 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 270 | 0 | VALIDITY_TIME | The time from receipt of | [RFC5497] | 271 | | | the message during which | | 272 | | | the information contained | | 273 | | | in the message is to be | | 274 | | | considered valid | | 275 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 276 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] | 277 | | | Use | | 278 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 280 Table 3: Type 1 Message TLV Type Extensions 282 The IANA Registry "ICV Message TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged. 284 The IANA Registry "TIMESTAMP Message TLV Type Extensions" is 285 unchanged. 287 The IANA Registry "MPR_WILLING Message Type Extensions" is renamed as 288 "Type 7 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 4. 290 +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+ 291 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 292 | Extension | | | | 293 +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+ 294 | 0 | MPR_WILLING | Bits 0-3 specify the | [RFC7181] | 295 | | | originating router's | | 296 | | | willingness to act as a | | 297 | | | flooding MPR; bits 4-7 | | 298 | | | specify the originating | | 299 | | | router's willingness to act | | 300 | | | as a routing MPR | | 301 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 302 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC7181] | 303 | | | Use | | 304 +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+ 306 Table 4: Type 7 Message TLV Type Extensions 308 The IANA Registry "CONT_SEQ_NUM Message Type Extensions" is renamed 309 as "Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 5. 311 +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+ 312 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 313 | Extension | | | | 314 +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+ 315 | 0 | CONT_SEQ_NUM | Specifies a content | [RFC7181] | 316 | | (COMPLETE) | sequence number for this | | 317 | | | complete message | | 318 | 1 | CONT_SEQ_NUM | Specifies a content | [RFC7181] | 319 | | (INCOMPLETE) | sequence number for this | | 320 | | | incomplete message | | 321 | 2-223 | | Unassigned | | 322 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC7181] | 323 | | | Use | | 324 +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+ 326 Table 5: Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions 328 The IANA Registry "Address Block TLV Types" is changed to Table 6. 330 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 331 | Type | Description | Reference | 332 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 333 | 0 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | 334 | 1 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | 335 | 2 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] | 336 | 3 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] | 337 | 4 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] | 338 | 5 | ICV | [RFC7182] | 339 | 6 | TIMESTAMP | [RFC7182] | 340 | 7 | LINK_METRIC | [RFC7181] | 341 | 8 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 342 | 9 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 343 | 10 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 344 | 11-223 | Unassigned | | 345 | 224-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | [RFC5444] | 346 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 348 Table 6: Address Block TLV Types 350 The IANA Registry "INTERVAL_TIME Address Block TLV Type Extensions" 351 is renamed as "Type 0 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed 352 to Table 7. 354 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 355 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 356 | Extension | | | | 357 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 358 | 0 | INTERVAL_TIME | The maximum time before | [RFC5497] | 359 | | | another message of the | | 360 | | | same type as this message | | 361 | | | from the same originator | | 362 | | | and containing this | | 363 | | | address should be | | 364 | | | received | | 365 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 366 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] | 367 | | | Use | | 368 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 370 Table 7: Type 0 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 372 The IANA Registry "VALIDITY_TIME Address Block Type Extensions" is 373 renamed as "Type 1 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 374 Table 8. 376 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 377 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 378 | Extension | | | | 379 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 380 | 0 | VALIDITY_TIME | The time from receipt of | [RFC5497] | 381 | | | the address during which | | 382 | | | the information regarding | | 383 | | | this address is to be | | 384 | | | considered valid | | 385 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 386 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] | 387 | | | Use | | 388 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 390 Table 8: Type 1 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 392 The IANA Registry "LOCAL_IF Address Block Type Extensions" is renamed 393 as "Type 2 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 9. 395 +-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+ 396 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 397 | Extension | | | | 398 +-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+ 399 | 0 | LOCAL_IF | This value is to be | [RFC7188][RFC6130] | 400 | | | interpreted according | | 401 | | | to the registry | | 402 | | | [LOCAL_IF TLV Values] | | 403 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 404 | 224-255 | | Reserved for | [RFC6130] | 405 | | | Experimental Use | | 406 +-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+ 408 Table 9: Type 2 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 410 The IANA Registry "LINK_STATUS Address Block Type Extensions" is 411 renamed as "Type 3 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 412 Table 10. 414 +-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+ 415 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 416 | Extension | | | | 417 +-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+ 418 | 0 | LINK_STATUS | This value is to | [RFC7188][RFC6130] | 419 | | | be interpreted | | 420 | | | according to the | | 421 | | | registry | | 422 | | | [LINK_STATUS TLV | | 423 | | | Values] | | 424 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 425 | 224-255 | | Reserved for | [RFC6130] | 426 | | | Experimental Use | | 427 +-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+ 429 Table 10: Type 3 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 431 The IANA Registry "OTHER_NEIGHB Address Block Type Extensions" is 432 renamed as "Type 4 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 433 Table 11. 435 +-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+ 436 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 437 | Extension | | | | 438 +-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+ 439 | 0 | OTHER_NEIGHB | This value is to | [RFC7188][RFC6130] | 440 | | | be interpreted | | 441 | | | according to the | | 442 | | | registry | | 443 | | | [OTHER_NEIGHB TLV | | 444 | | | Values] | | 445 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 446 | 224-255 | | Reserved for | [RFC6130] | 447 | | | Experimental Use | | 448 +-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+ 450 Table 11: Type 4 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 452 The IANA Registry "ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is 453 unchanged. 455 The IANA Registry "TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is 456 unchanged. 458 The IANA Registry "LINK_METRIC Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is 459 unchanged. 461 The IANA Registry "MPR Address Block Type Extensions" is renamed as 462 "Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 12. 464 +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+ 465 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 466 | Extension | | | | 467 +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+ 468 | 0 | MPR | This value is to be | [RFC7188][RFC7181] | 469 | | | interpreted according to | | 470 | | | the registry [MPR TLV Bit | | 471 | | | Values] | | 472 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 473 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | This Document | 474 | | | Use | | 475 +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+ 477 Table 12: Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 479 The IANA Registry "NBR_ADDR_TYPES Address Block Type Extensions" is 480 renamed as "Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 481 Table 13. 483 +-----------+----------------+-----------------+--------------------+ 484 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 485 | Extension | | | | 486 +-----------+----------------+-----------------+--------------------+ 487 | 0 | NBR_ADDR_TYPES | This value is | [RFC7188][RFC7181] | 488 | | | to be | | 489 | | | interpreted | | 490 | | | according to | | 491 | | | the registry | | 492 | | | [NBR_ADDR_TYPE | | 493 | | | Address Block | | 494 | | | TLV Bit Values] | | 495 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 496 | 224-255 | | Reserved for | This Document | 497 | | | Experimental | | 498 | | | Use | | 499 +-----------+----------------+-----------------+--------------------+ 501 Table 13: Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 503 The IANA Registry "GATEWAY Address Block Type Extensions" is renamed 504 as "Type 10 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 505 Table 14. 507 +-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+ 508 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 509 | Extension | | | | 510 +-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+ 511 | 0 | GATEWAY | Specifies that a given | [RFC7188][RFC7181] | 512 | | | network address is | | 513 | | | reached via a gateway | | 514 | | | on the originating | | 515 | | | router, with value | | 516 | | | equal to the number of | | 517 | | | hops | | 518 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 519 | 224-255 | | Reserved for | This Document | 520 | | | Experimental Use | | 521 +-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+ 523 Table 14: Type 10 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 525 Note: This document adds reservations for experimental use, omitted 526 in [RFC7181], to the last three tables. 528 4. Security Considerations 530 As this document is concerned only with how entities are named, those 531 names being used only in documents such as this and IANA registries, 532 this document has no security considerations. 534 5. Acknowledgments 536 The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for having pointed out 537 the need for reorganization and rationalization the naming of TLVs 538 (type-length-value structures), defined by [RFC5444]. 540 6. Normative References 542 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 543 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 545 [RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih, 546 "Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444, 547 February 2009. 549 [RFC5497] Clausen, T. and C. Dearlove, "Representing Multi-Value 550 Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 5497, 551 March 2009. 553 [RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "Mobile Ad Hoc 554 Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", 555 RFC 6130, April 2011. 557 [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, 558 "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2", 559 RFC 7181, April 2014. 561 [RFC7182] Herberg, U., Clausen, T., and C. Dearlove, "Integrity 562 Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad 563 Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 7182, April 2014. 565 [RFC7188] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Optimized Link State Routing 566 Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood 567 Discovery Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs", RFC 7188, 568 April 2014. 570 Authors' Addresses 572 Christopher Dearlove 573 BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre 574 West Hanningfield Road 575 Great Baddow, Chelmsford 576 United Kingdom 578 Phone: +44 1245 242194 579 Email: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com 580 URI: http://www.baesystems.com/ 581 Thomas Heide Clausen 582 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 584 Phone: +33 6 6058 9349 585 Email: T.Clausen@computer.org 586 URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/