idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-01.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 (February 11, 2015) is 3356 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: August 15, 2015 February 11, 2015 8 TLV Naming in the MANET Generalized Packet/Message Format 9 draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-01 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. It makes no other changes to 40 RFC5444. 42 Status of this Memo 44 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 45 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 47 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 48 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 49 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 50 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 52 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 53 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 54 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 55 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 57 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 15, 2015. 59 Copyright Notice 61 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 62 document authors. All rights reserved. 64 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 65 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 66 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 67 publication of this document. Please review these documents 68 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 69 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 70 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 71 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 72 described in the Simplified BSD License. 74 Table of Contents 76 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 77 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 3.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 3.2. Updated IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 82 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 83 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 84 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 86 1. Introduction 88 This document reorganizes and rationalizes the naming of TLVs (type- 89 length-value structures), defined by [RFC5444] and recorded by IANA 90 in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters registries "Packet 91 TLV Types", "Message TLV Types", and "Address Block TLV Types". 93 This document reorganizes the naming of already allocated Packet, 94 Message and Address Block TLV types, and their corresponding Type 95 Extensions, and updates corresponding IANA registries. 97 TLVs have a type (one octet) and a type extension (one octet) which 98 together form a full type (of two octets). A TLV may omit the type 99 extension when it is zero, but that applies only to its 100 representation, it still has a type extension of zero. A TLV type 101 defines an IANA registry of type extensions for that type. 103 There have been two forms of TLV allocation. 105 The first, but less common, form of allocation has been that 106 allocation of the type has immediately defined (but not necessarily 107 allocated) all the corresponding type extensions for versions of that 108 type. This applies, for example, to the Address Block TLV 109 LINK_METRIC specified in [RFC7181]. The LINK_METRIC type extensions 110 are all available for allocation for different definitions of link 111 metric. It is appropriate in this case to apply the name LINK_METRIC 112 to the type, and also to all the full types corresponding to that 113 type, as has been done. Type extensions can then be individually 114 named, or can be simply referred to by their number. 116 The second, more common, form of allocation has been that for a TLV 117 type, only type extension 0, and possibly the type extension 1, are 118 defined. An example is the Address Block TLV LINK_STATUS defined in 119 [RFC6130], where only type extension 0 is allocated. It is not 120 reasonable to assume that the remaining 255 type extensions will be 121 allocated to forms of LINK_STATUS. (Other forms of link status are 122 already catered to by the introduction, in [RFC7188], of a registry 123 for values of the LINK_STATUS TLV.) Thus the name LINK_STATUS should 124 be attached to that specific type extension for that type, i.e., to 125 the full type, and not to the TLV type when used with all other type 126 extensions therefore. This was, however, not done as part of the 127 initial registration of this TLV type. Effectively, this leaves, for 128 the LINK_STAUS TLV type, the type extensions 1-255 either unavailable 129 for allocation (if applying strictly the interpretation that they 130 must relate to a LINK_STATUS), or counterintuitively named for their 131 intended function. 133 The purpose of this document is to change how these names are 134 applied, and recorded in IANA registries, and to provide guidelines 135 and instructions for future TLV type allocations. This is to 136 facilitate the addition of new TLVs using type extensions other than 137 0, but without them having inappropriate names attached. So, for 138 example, LINK_STATUS will become the name of the full type (as 139 composed by the TLV type 3 and the TLV type extension 0), and will 140 cease being the name of the TLV type 3. This leaves the question of 141 how to name the type. As it is not clear what other TLVs might be 142 defined for other type extensions of the same type, it is proposed to 143 leave the type currently unnamed, specified only by number. 145 This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines from 146 [RFC5444], so as to establish a policy for consisteng naming of 147 future TLV type and type extension allocations. 149 For clarity, all currently allocated TLVs in [RFC5497], [RFC6130], 150 [RFC7181] and [RFC7182] will be listed in the IANA considerations 151 section of this document, indicating no change when that is 152 appropriate (such as the LINK_METRIC TLV). The only changes are of 153 naming. 155 Note that nothing in this draft changes the operation of any 156 protocol. This naming is already used, in effect, in [RFC6130] and 157 [RFC7181], currently the main users of allocated TLVs. For example 158 the former indicates that all usage of LINK_STATUS refers to that TLV 159 with type extension 0. 161 2. Terminology 163 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 164 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 165 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 166 [RFC2119]. 168 All references to elements such as packet, message and TLV in this 169 document refer to those defined in [RFC5444]. 171 3. IANA Considerations 173 This document updates the Expert Review evaluation guidelines for 174 Packet TLV Type, Message TLV Type, and Address Block TLV Type 175 allocations, from [RFC5444], and updates the registries for already 176 made allocations to follow these guidelines. 178 3.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines 180 For registration from the registries for Packet TLV Types, Message 181 TLV Types, and Address Block TLV Types, the following guidelines 182 apply, in addition to those given in section 6.1 in [RFC5444]: 184 o If the reguested TLV Type immediately defines (but not necessarily 185 allocates) all the corresponding type extensions for versions of 186 that type, then a common name SHOULD be assigned for the TLV type. 188 o Otherwise, if the reguested TLV Type does not immediately define 189 all the corresponding type extensions for versions of that type, 190 then a common name SHOULD NOT be assigned for that TLV type. 191 Instead, it is RECOMMENDED that: 193 * The "description" for the allocated TLV type be "Defined by 194 Type Extension"; 196 * For Packet TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, created 197 for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Packet TLV Type 198 Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV 199 Type. 201 * For Message TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, 202 created for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Message TLV Type 203 Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV 204 Type. 206 * For Address Block TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, 207 created for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Address Block TLV 208 Type Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of 209 the TLV Type. 211 * That each Type Extension be given a name when allocated. 213 3.2. Updated IANA Registries 215 The following changes all apply to the IANA registry "Mobile Ad hoc 216 NETwork (MANET) Parameters". 218 The IANA registry "Packet TLV Types" is unchanged. 220 The IANA Registry "ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged. 222 The IANA Registry "TIMESTAMP Packet TLV Type Extensions" is 223 unchanged. 225 The IANA Registry "Message TLV Types" is changed to Table 1. 227 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 228 | Type | Description | Reference | 229 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 230 | 0 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | 231 | 1 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | 232 | 2-4 | Unassigned | | 233 | 5 | ICV | [RFC7182] | 234 | 6 | TIMESTAMP | [RFC7182] | 235 | 7 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 236 | 8 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 237 | 9-223 | Unassigned | | 238 | 224-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | [RFC5444] | 239 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 241 Table 1: Message TLV Types 243 The IANA Registry "INTERVAL_TIME Message TLV Type Extensions" is 244 renamed as "Type 0 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 245 Table 2. 247 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 248 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 249 | Extension | | | | 250 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 251 | 0 | INTERVAL_TIME | The maximum time before | [RFC5497] | 252 | | | another message of the | | 253 | | | same type as this message | | 254 | | | from the same originator | | 255 | | | should be received | | 256 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 257 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] | 258 | | | Use | | 259 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 261 Table 2: Type 0 Message TLV Type Extensions 263 The IANA Registry "VALIDITY_TIME Message TLV Type Extensions" is 264 renamed as "Type 1 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 265 Table 3. 267 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 268 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 269 | Extension | | | | 270 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 271 | 0 | VALIDITY_TIME | The time from receipt of | [RFC5497] | 272 | | | the message during which | | 273 | | | the information contained | | 274 | | | in the message is to be | | 275 | | | considered valid | | 276 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 277 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] | 278 | | | Use | | 279 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 281 Table 3: Type 1 Message TLV Type Extensions 283 The IANA Registry "ICV Message TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged. 285 The IANA Registry "TIMESTAMP Message TLV Type Extensions" is 286 unchanged. 288 The IANA Registry "MPR_WILLING Message Type Extensions" is renamed as 289 "Type 7 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 4. 291 +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+ 292 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 293 | Extension | | | | 294 +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+ 295 | 0 | MPR_WILLING | Bits 0-3 specify the | [RFC7181] | 296 | | | originating router's | | 297 | | | willingness to act as a | | 298 | | | flooding MPR; bits 4-7 | | 299 | | | specify the originating | | 300 | | | router's willingness to act | | 301 | | | as a routing MPR | | 302 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 303 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC7181] | 304 | | | Use | | 305 +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+ 307 Table 4: Type 7 Message TLV Type Extensions 309 The IANA Registry "CONT_SEQ_NUM Message Type Extensions" is renamed 310 as "Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 5. 312 +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+ 313 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 314 | Extension | | | | 315 +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+ 316 | 0 | CONT_SEQ_NUM | Specifies a content | [RFC7181] | 317 | | (COMPLETE) | sequence number for this | | 318 | | | complete message | | 319 | 1 | CONT_SEQ_NUM | Specifies a content | [RFC7181] | 320 | | (INCOMPLETE) | sequence number for this | | 321 | | | incomplete message | | 322 | 2-223 | | Unassigned | | 323 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC7181] | 324 | | | Use | | 325 +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+ 327 Table 5: Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions 329 The IANA Registry "Address Block TLV Types" is changed to Table 6. 331 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 332 | Type | Description | Reference | 333 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 334 | 0 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | 335 | 1 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | 336 | 2 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] | 337 | 3 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] | 338 | 4 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] | 339 | 5 | ICV | [RFC7182] | 340 | 6 | TIMESTAMP | [RFC7182] | 341 | 7 | LINK_METRIC | [RFC7181] | 342 | 8 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 343 | 9 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 344 | 10 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 345 | 11-223 | Unassigned | | 346 | 224-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | [RFC5444] | 347 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 349 Table 6: Address Block TLV Types 351 The IANA Registry "INTERVAL_TIME Address Block TLV Type Extensions" 352 is renamed as "Type 0 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed 353 to Table 7. 355 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 356 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 357 | Extension | | | | 358 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 359 | 0 | INTERVAL_TIME | The maximum time before | [RFC5497] | 360 | | | another message of the | | 361 | | | same type as this message | | 362 | | | from the same originator | | 363 | | | and containing this | | 364 | | | address should be | | 365 | | | received | | 366 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 367 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] | 368 | | | Use | | 369 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 371 Table 7: Type 0 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 373 The IANA Registry "VALIDITY_TIME Address Block Type Extensions" is 374 renamed as "Type 1 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 375 Table 8. 377 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 378 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 379 | Extension | | | | 380 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 381 | 0 | VALIDITY_TIME | The time from receipt of | [RFC5497] | 382 | | | the address during which | | 383 | | | the information regarding | | 384 | | | this address is to be | | 385 | | | considered valid | | 386 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 387 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] | 388 | | | Use | | 389 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 391 Table 8: Type 1 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 393 The IANA Registry "LOCAL_IF Address Block Type Extensions" is renamed 394 as "Type 2 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 9. 396 +-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+ 397 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 398 | Extension | | | | 399 +-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+ 400 | 0 | LOCAL_IF | This value is to be | [RFC7188][RFC6130] | 401 | | | interpreted according | | 402 | | | to the registry | | 403 | | | [LOCAL_IF TLV Values] | | 404 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 405 | 224-255 | | Reserved for | [RFC6130] | 406 | | | Experimental Use | | 407 +-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+ 409 Table 9: Type 2 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 411 The IANA Registry "LINK_STATUS Address Block Type Extensions" is 412 renamed as "Type 3 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 413 Table 10. 415 +-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+ 416 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 417 | Extension | | | | 418 +-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+ 419 | 0 | LINK_STATUS | This value is to | [RFC7188][RFC6130] | 420 | | | be interpreted | | 421 | | | according to the | | 422 | | | registry | | 423 | | | [LINK_STATUS TLV | | 424 | | | Values] | | 425 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 426 | 224-255 | | Reserved for | [RFC6130] | 427 | | | Experimental Use | | 428 +-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+ 430 Table 10: Type 3 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 432 The IANA Registry "OTHER_NEIGHB Address Block Type Extensions" is 433 renamed as "Type 4 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 434 Table 11. 436 +-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+ 437 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 438 | Extension | | | | 439 +-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+ 440 | 0 | OTHER_NEIGHB | This value is to | [RFC7188][RFC6130] | 441 | | | be interpreted | | 442 | | | according to the | | 443 | | | registry | | 444 | | | [OTHER_NEIGHB TLV | | 445 | | | Values] | | 446 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 447 | 224-255 | | Reserved for | [RFC6130] | 448 | | | Experimental Use | | 449 +-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+ 451 Table 11: Type 4 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 453 The IANA Registry "ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is 454 unchanged. 456 The IANA Registry "TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is 457 unchanged. 459 The IANA Registry "LINK_METRIC Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is 460 unchanged. 462 The IANA Registry "MPR Address Block Type Extensions" is renamed as 463 "Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 12. 465 +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+ 466 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 467 | Extension | | | | 468 +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+ 469 | 0 | MPR | This value is to be | [RFC7188][RFC7181] | 470 | | | interpreted according to | | 471 | | | the registry [MPR TLV Bit | | 472 | | | Values] | | 473 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 474 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | This Document | 475 | | | Use | | 476 +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+ 478 Table 12: Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 480 The IANA Registry "NBR_ADDR_TYPES Address Block Type Extensions" is 481 renamed as "Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 482 Table 13. 484 +-----------+----------------+-----------------+--------------------+ 485 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 486 | Extension | | | | 487 +-----------+----------------+-----------------+--------------------+ 488 | 0 | NBR_ADDR_TYPES | This value is | [RFC7188][RFC7181] | 489 | | | to be | | 490 | | | interpreted | | 491 | | | according to | | 492 | | | the registry | | 493 | | | [NBR_ADDR_TYPE | | 494 | | | Address Block | | 495 | | | TLV Bit Values] | | 496 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 497 | 224-255 | | Reserved for | This Document | 498 | | | Experimental | | 499 | | | Use | | 500 +-----------+----------------+-----------------+--------------------+ 502 Table 13: Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 504 The IANA Registry "GATEWAY Address Block Type Extensions" is renamed 505 as "Type 10 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 506 Table 14. 508 +-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+ 509 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 510 | Extension | | | | 511 +-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+ 512 | 0 | GATEWAY | Specifies that a given | [RFC7188][RFC7181] | 513 | | | network address is | | 514 | | | reached via a gateway | | 515 | | | on the originating | | 516 | | | router, with value | | 517 | | | equal to the number of | | 518 | | | hops | | 519 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 520 | 224-255 | | Reserved for | This Document | 521 | | | Experimental Use | | 522 +-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+ 524 Table 14: Type 10 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 526 Note: This document adds reservations for experimental use, omitted 527 in [RFC7181], to the last three tables. 529 4. Security Considerations 531 As this document is concerned only with how entities are named, those 532 names being used only in documents such as this and IANA registries, 533 this document has no security considerations. 535 5. Acknowledgments 537 The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for having pointed out 538 the need for reorganization and rationalization the naming of TLVs 539 (type-length-value structures), defined by [RFC5444]. 541 6. Normative References 543 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 544 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 546 [RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih, 547 "Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444, 548 February 2009. 550 [RFC5497] Clausen, T. and C. Dearlove, "Representing Multi-Value 551 Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 5497, 552 March 2009. 554 [RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "Mobile Ad Hoc 555 Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", 556 RFC 6130, April 2011. 558 [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, 559 "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2", 560 RFC 7181, April 2014. 562 [RFC7182] Herberg, U., Clausen, T., and C. Dearlove, "Integrity 563 Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad 564 Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 7182, April 2014. 566 [RFC7188] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Optimized Link State Routing 567 Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood 568 Discovery Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs", RFC 7188, 569 April 2014. 571 Authors' Addresses 573 Christopher Dearlove 574 BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre 575 West Hanningfield Road 576 Great Baddow, Chelmsford 577 United Kingdom 579 Phone: +44 1245 242194 580 Email: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com 581 URI: http://www.baesystems.com/ 582 Thomas Heide Clausen 583 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 585 Phone: +33 6 6058 9349 586 Email: T.Clausen@computer.org 587 URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/