Re: [Gen-art] Pre-telechat review of draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-02

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <> Wed, 13 May 2015 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC1A1B300F; Wed, 13 May 2015 08:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.103
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4e3WRGP_u6G9; Wed, 13 May 2015 08:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FCF91B300C; Wed, 13 May 2015 08:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,421,1427756400"; d="scan'208";a="551841041"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 May 2015 16:51:12 +0100
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,421,1427756400"; d="scan'208";a="97928848"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 May 2015 16:51:12 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 13 May 2015 16:51:12 +0100
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
To: Tom Taylor <>, Gen Art <>, "T. Clausen" <>, Justin Dean <>, Alvaro Retana <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Pre-telechat review of draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-02
Thread-Index: AQHQi3HXKu8ui/jWhE6gCjge2AmOAJ16EiVQ
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 15:51:11 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Pre-telechat review of draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 15:51:17 -0000


Thanks for those detailed and useful comments. The soon to be submitted next draft will address all of them.


Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer
BAE Systems Applied Intelligence

T:  +44 (0)1245 242194  |  E:

BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN.
BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited
Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451
Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor [] 
Sent: 10 May 2015 23:37
To: Gen Art; Dearlove, Christopher (UK); T. Clausen; Justin Dean; Alvaro Retana;
Subject: Pre-telechat review of draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-02

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.

This was supposed to be done by May 1, but got buried in my Inbox. My apologies.

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-02
Reviewer: Tom Taylor
Review Date:        10 May 2015
IETF LC End Date:    1 May 2015
IESG Telechat date: 14 May 2015

Summary: This document has minor issues that need to be resolved, along with a few nits.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. If the requested TLV Type does not immediately define all the corresponding type extensions for versions of that type, the Expert Reviewer or IANA will be faced with the task of choosing an appropriate Type value within which to place the extension. No guidance has been provided for this purpose. What is the intention?

2. No IANA Considerations have been provided for the following registries:
     TC Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types
     TC Message-Type-specific Address Block TLV Types
     HELLO Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types
     HELLO Message-Type-specific Address Block TLV Types
     SMF_TYPE Message TLV Type Extensions
     SMF_NBR_TYPE Address Block TLV Type Extensions

Nits/editorial comments:

Sec. 1, third from last paragraph: s/consisteng/consistent/

Sec. 3.1, s/reguested/requested/ (both outer bullets, first line of each)

IANA Considerations, following Table 11: the current registry name is "ICV[TIMESTAMP] Address TLV Type Extensions" (missing the word "Block"). 
This is inconsistent with the other address block TLV types. I suggest, in place of the current text for these two extension registries, text to resolve the inconsistency, as follows:


    The IANA Registry "ICV[TIMESTAMP] Address Block TLV Type Extensions"
    is unchanged.


    The IANA Registry "ICV[TIMESTAMP] Address TLV Type Extensions" is
    unchanged except to add the word "Block" after "Address" in the
    registry name.

IANA Considerations, Table 13 and preceding text: the current registry name is "NBR_ADDR_TYPE ....". This document refers to it as "NBR_ADDR_TYPES ...." (i.e., plural). The inconsistency needs to be resolved.
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.