idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-05.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 (June 24, 2015) is 3228 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) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 6621 Summary: 1 error (**), 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: December 26, 2015 June 24, 2015 8 TLV Naming in the MANET Generalized Packet/Message Format 9 draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-05 11 Abstract 13 This document reorganizes the naming of already allocated TLV (type- 14 length-value) types and type extensions in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork 15 (MANET) registries defined by RFC 5444 to use names appropriately. 16 It has no consequences in terms of any protocol implementation. 18 This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines from RFC 19 5444, so as to establish a policy for consistent naming of future TLV 20 type and type extension allocations. It makes no other changes to 21 RFC 5444. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 26, 2015. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3.2. Updated IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 63 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 64 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 65 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 67 1. Introduction 69 This document reorganizes and rationalizes the naming of TLVs (type- 70 length-value structures), defined by [RFC5444] and recorded by IANA 71 in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters registries "Packet 72 TLV Types", "Message TLV Types", and "Address Block TLV Types". 74 This document reorganizes the naming of already allocated Packet, 75 Message and Address Block TLV types, and their corresponding Type 76 Extensions, and updates corresponding IANA registries. 78 TLVs have a type (one octet) and a type extension (one octet) which 79 together form a full type (of two octets). A TLV may omit the type 80 extension when it is zero, but that applies only to its 81 representation, it still has a type extension of zero. A TLV type 82 defines an IANA registry of type extensions for that type. 84 There have been two forms of TLV allocation. 86 The first, but less common, form of allocation has been that 87 allocation of the type has immediately defined (but not necessarily 88 allocated) all the corresponding type extensions for versions of that 89 type. This applies, for example, to the Address Block TLV 90 LINK_METRIC specified in [RFC7181]. The LINK_METRIC type extensions 91 are all available for allocation for different definitions of link 92 metric. It is appropriate in this case to apply the name LINK_METRIC 93 to the type, and also to all the full types corresponding to that 94 type, as has been done. Type extensions can then be individually 95 named, or can be simply referred to by their number. 97 The second, more common, form of allocation has been that for a TLV 98 type, only type extension 0, and possibly the type extension 1, are 99 defined. An example is the Address Block TLV LINK_STATUS defined in 100 [RFC6130], where only type extension 0 is allocated. It is not 101 reasonable to assume that the remaining 255 type extensions will be 102 allocated to forms of LINK_STATUS. (Other forms of link status are 103 already catered to by the introduction, in [RFC7188], of a registry 104 for values of the LINK_STATUS TLV.) Thus the name LINK_STATUS should 105 be attached to that specific type extension for that type, i.e., to 106 the full type, and not to the TLV type when used with all other type 107 extensions therefore. This was, however, not done as part of the 108 initial registration of this TLV type. Effectively, this leaves, for 109 the LINK_STATUS TLV type, the type extensions 1-255 either 110 unavailable for allocation (if applying strictly the interpretation 111 that they must relate to a LINK_STATUS), or counterintuitively named 112 for their intended function. 114 The purpose of this document is to change how names of the second 115 form are applied, and recorded in IANA registries, and to provide 116 guidelines and instructions for future TLV type allocations. This is 117 to facilitate the addition of new TLVs using type extensions other 118 than 0, but without them having inappropriate names attached. So, 119 for example, LINK_STATUS will become the name of the full type (as 120 composed by the TLV type 3 and the TLV type extension 0), and will 121 cease being the name of the TLV type 3. This leaves the question of 122 how to name the type. As it is not clear what other TLVs might be 123 defined for other type extensions of the same type, it is proposed to 124 leave the type currently unnamed, specified only by number. 126 This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines from 127 [RFC5444], so as to establish a policy for consistent naming of 128 future TLV type and type extension allocations. 130 For clarity, all currently allocated TLVs in [RFC5497], [RFC6130], 131 [RFC6621], [RFC7181] and [RFC7182] will be listed in the IANA 132 considerations section of this document, indicating no change when 133 that is appropriate (such as the LINK_METRIC TLV, and including both 134 TLVs defined in [RFC6621]). The only changes are of naming. 136 Note that nothing in this draft changes the operation of any 137 protocol. This naming is already used, in effect, in [RFC6130] and 138 [RFC7181], currently the main users of allocated TLVs. For example 139 the former indicates that all usage of LINK_STATUS refers to that TLV 140 with type extension 0. 142 2. Terminology 144 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 145 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 146 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 147 [RFC2119]. 149 All references to elements such as packet, message and TLV in this 150 document refer to those defined in [RFC5444]. 152 3. IANA Considerations 154 This document updates the Expert Review evaluation guidelines for 155 Packet TLV Type, Message TLV Type, and Address Block TLV Type 156 allocations, from [RFC5444], and updates the registries for already 157 made allocations to follow these guidelines. 159 3.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines 161 For registration from the registries for Packet TLV Types, Message 162 TLV Types, and Address Block TLV Types, the following guidelines 163 apply, in addition to those given in section 6.1 in [RFC5444]: 165 o If the requested TLV Type immediately defines (but not necessarily 166 allocates) all the corresponding type extensions for versions of 167 that type, then a common name SHOULD be assigned for the TLV type. 169 o Otherwise, if the requested TLV Type does not immediately define 170 all the corresponding type extensions for versions of that type, 171 then a common name SHOULD NOT be assigned for that TLV type. 172 Instead, it is RECOMMENDED that: 174 * The "description" for the allocated TLV type be "Defined by 175 Type Extension"; 177 * For Packet TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, created 178 for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Packet TLV Type 179 Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV 180 Type. 182 * For Message TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, 183 created for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Message TLV Type 184 Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV 185 Type. 187 * For Address Block TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, 188 created for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Address Block TLV 189 Type Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of 190 the TLV Type. 192 * That when a new Type Extension is required that, unless there 193 are reasons to the contrary, the next consecutive type 194 extension is allocated and given a name. (Reasons to the 195 contrary MAY include maintaining a correspondence between 196 corresponding Packet, Message, and Address Block TLVs, and 197 reserving type extension zero if not yet allocated.) 199 Note that the former case is unchanged by this specification, this 200 currently includes TLV types named ICV, TIMESTAMP and LINK_METRIC, 201 and the HELLO Message-Type-specific TLVs defined in [RFC6621]. 203 3.2. Updated IANA Registries 205 The following changes (including correcting some existing minor 206 errors) all apply to the IANA registry "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) 207 Parameters". For clarity, registries that are unchanged, including 208 those that define all type extensions of a TLV type, are listed as 209 unchanged. 211 The IANA registry "Packet TLV Types" is unchanged. 213 The IANA Registry "ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged. 215 The IANA Registry "TIMESTAMP Packet TLV Type Extensions" is 216 unchanged. 218 The IANA Registry "Message TLV Types" is changed to Table 1. 220 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 221 | Type | Description | Reference | 222 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 223 | 0 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | 224 | 1 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | 225 | 2-4 | Unassigned | | 226 | 5 | ICV | [RFC7182] | 227 | 6 | TIMESTAMP | [RFC7182] | 228 | 7 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 229 | 8 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC7181] | 230 | 9-223 | Unassigned | | 231 | 224-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | [RFC5444] | 232 +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ 234 Table 1: Message TLV Types 236 The IANA Registry "INTERVAL_TIME Message Type Extensions" is renamed 237 as "Type 0 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 2. 239 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 240 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 241 | Extension | | | | 242 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 243 | 0 | INTERVAL_TIME | The maximum time before | [RFC5497] | 244 | | | another message of the | | 245 | | | same type as this message | | 246 | | | from the same originator | | 247 | | | should be received | | 248 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 249 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] | 250 | | | Use | | 251 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 253 Table 2: Type 0 Message TLV Type Extensions 255 The IANA Registry "VALIDITY_TIME Message Type Extensions" is renamed 256 as "Type 1 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 3. 258 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 259 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 260 | Extension | | | | 261 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 262 | 0 | VALIDITY_TIME | The time from receipt of | [RFC5497] | 263 | | | the message during which | | 264 | | | the information contained | | 265 | | | in the message is to be | | 266 | | | considered valid | | 267 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 268 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] | 269 | | | Use | | 270 +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+ 272 Table 3: Type 1 Message TLV Type Extensions 274 The IANA Registry "ICV Message TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged. 276 The IANA Registry "TIMESTAMP Message TLV Type Extensions" is 277 unchanged. 279 The IANA Registry "MPR_WILLING Message Type Extensions" is renamed as 280 "Type 7 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 4. 282 +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+ 283 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 284 | Extension | | | | 285 +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+ 286 | 0 | MPR_WILLING | Bits 0-3 specify the | [RFC7181] | 287 | | | originating router's | | 288 | | | willingness to act as a | | 289 | | | flooding MPR; bits 4-7 | | 290 | | | specify the originating | | 291 | | | router's willingness to act | | 292 | | | as a routing MPR | | 293 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 294 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC7181] | 295 | | | Use | | 296 +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+ 298 Table 4: Type 7 Message TLV Type Extensions 300 The IANA Registry "CONT_SEQ_NUM Message Type Extensions" is renamed 301 as "Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 5. 303 +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+ 304 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 305 | Extension | | | | 306 +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+ 307 | 0 | CONT_SEQ_NUM | Specifies a content | [RFC7181] | 308 | | (COMPLETE) | sequence number for this | | 309 | | | complete message | | 310 | 1 | CONT_SEQ_NUM | Specifies a content | [RFC7181] | 311 | | (INCOMPLETE) | sequence number for this | | 312 | | | incomplete message | | 313 | 2-223 | | Unassigned | | 314 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC7181] | 315 | | | Use | | 316 +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+ 318 Table 5: Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions 320 The IANA Registry "HELLO Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types" is 321 unchanged. 323 The IANA Registry "SMF_TYPE Message TLV Type Extensions" is 324 unchanged. 326 The IANA Registry "TC Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types" is 327 unchanged. 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 TLV Type Extensions" 374 is renamed as "Type 1 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed 375 to 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 TLV 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 TLV 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 TLV Type Extensions" is renamed as 454 "ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions" but is otherwise unchanged. 456 The IANA Registry "TIMESTAMP Address TLV Type Extensions" is renamed 457 as "TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV Type Extensions" but is otherwise 458 unchanged. 460 The IANA Registry "LINK_METRIC Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is 461 unchanged. 463 The IANA Registry "MPR Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is renamed 464 as "Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to 465 Table 12. 467 +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+ 468 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 469 | Extension | | | | 470 +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+ 471 | 0 | MPR | This value is to be | [RFC7188][RFC7181] | 472 | | | interpreted according to | | 473 | | | the registry [MPR TLV Bit | | 474 | | | Values] | | 475 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 476 | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | This Document | 477 | | | Use | | 478 +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+ 480 Table 12: Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 482 The IANA Registry "NBR_ADDR_TYPE Address Block TLV Type Extensions" 483 is renamed as "Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed 484 to Table 13. 486 +-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+ 487 | Type | Name | Description | Reference | 488 | Extension | | | | 489 +-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+ 490 | 0 | NBR_ADDR_TYPE | This value is to | [RFC7188][RFC7181] | 491 | | | be interpreted | | 492 | | | according to the | | 493 | | | registry | | 494 | | | [NBR_ADDR_TYPE | | 495 | | | Address Block | | 496 | | | TLV Bit Values] | | 497 | 1-223 | | Unassigned | | 498 | 224-255 | | Reserved for | This Document | 499 | | | Experimental Use | | 500 +-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+ 502 Table 13: Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions 504 The IANA Registry "GATEWAY Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is 505 renamed 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 The IANA Registry "HELLO Message-Type-specific Address Block TLV 527 Types" is unchanged. 529 The IANA Registry "SMF_NBR_TYPE Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is 530 unchanged. 532 The IANA Registry "TC Message-Type-specific Address Block TLV Types" 533 is unchanged. 535 Note: This document adds reservations for experimental use, omitted 536 in [RFC7181], to the last three tables. 538 4. Security Considerations 540 As this document is concerned only with how entities are named, those 541 names being used only in documents such as this and IANA registries, 542 this document has no security considerations. 544 5. Acknowledgments 546 The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for pointing out the 547 need to reorganize and rationalize the naming of the TLVs defined by 548 [RFC5444], and Tom Taylor for pointing out some omissions and errors. 550 6. Normative References 552 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 553 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 555 [RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih, 556 "Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444, 557 February 2009. 559 [RFC5497] Clausen, T. and C. Dearlove, "Representing Multi-Value 560 Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 5497, 561 March 2009. 563 [RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "Mobile Ad Hoc 564 Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", 565 RFC 6130, April 2011. 567 [RFC6621] Macker, J., "Simplified Multicast Forwarding", RFC 6621, 568 May 2012. 570 [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, 571 "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2", 572 RFC 7181, April 2014. 574 [RFC7182] Herberg, U., Clausen, T., and C. Dearlove, "Integrity 575 Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad 576 Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 7182, April 2014. 578 [RFC7188] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Optimized Link State Routing 579 Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood 580 Discovery Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs", RFC 7188, 581 April 2014. 583 Authors' Addresses 585 Christopher Dearlove 586 BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre 587 West Hanningfield Road 588 Great Baddow, Chelmsford 589 United Kingdom 591 Phone: +44 1245 242194 592 Email: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com 593 URI: http://www.baesystems.com/ 594 Thomas Heide Clausen 595 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 597 Phone: +33 6 6058 9349 598 Email: T.Clausen@computer.org 599 URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/