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

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Sun, 10 May 2015 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CF71AC427; Sun, 10 May 2015 15:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ai0KjQh0PkpI; Sun, 10 May 2015 15:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D7D21AC429; Sun, 10 May 2015 15:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ieczm2 with SMTP id zm2so96100480iec.2; Sun, 10 May 2015 15:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iUNn0wzd7g1+yf3jHTJ0Bj1KbFeHPTqvS9JVcy9nhjE=; b=Hw5usFfjmZsj4Lq9Dy2aC7sVQqm2xi9zv6pB2JEt2ISqhaJJKcAEyA+vc6MJrg4epk lD+if/2pqhp3/QrbGoSrnIlziMonLnkKdCJxKilYPZ1DuYgZrcsUySJLkw6SlrVDTtlA TGvnafVucUcuwzFKZUmIWKFQsELcAX5gQR48UqojPqPen/FZD+KOLBi4Y5NzcaeVfL7u 3Rs+mHjGre1Xt5/r6nKhlowhD2KPuUQYWy5++CsQPpFjFmyy/K1duH996yAqSba00qqX Khr+0E2RQwPBUzD1skYfXzkIB1JdJHL51gznHJPY0+qUy+vRAaj0+8TDCQDeDIM9Zvtu UDew==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w5mr8058268icd.39.1431297423919; Sun, 10 May 2015 15:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (dsl-173-206-48-122.tor.primus.ca. []) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e6sm4562247igy.15.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 10 May 2015 15:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <554FDD8D.9090508@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 18:37:01 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gen Art <gen-art@ietf.org>, "C. Dearlove" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>, "T. Clausen" <T.Clausen@computer.org>, Justin Dean <jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil>, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>, manet-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/MA5ge4qVSsBM1P5w2c8ObIRsfcs>
Subject: [Gen-art] Pre-telechat review of draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 22:37:06 -0000

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

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