[manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology and draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming-00.txt

[Thomas Heide Clausen <[e-mail]>]

Since, of course, all y’all are compulsively reading the ID-announce mailing list ;) you’ll have seen draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming-00.txt document appear just today.

This is in response to the review from our AD on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg16875.html <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg16875.html>), in which he indicates that we probably should re-think the way we name TLV types. 

As our AD requested, the authors did re-think, discuss a bit also with our AD and chairs, and came to a conclusion ... and that conclusion is in this I-D.

I think that it is safe to say that our AD is going to sit on, and therefore block progress for, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology — and that, until we see draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming move ahead (or, until we propose an alternative way forward, of course).

Given that, and in case there is time on the meeting agenda, then — if the WG is interested  and the WG chairs believe that it will be helpful in order to see progress — I’d be happy to say a few words on this topic, and try to answer any questions there might be.

Either way, I believe that we’ll very soon be soliciting the WG chairs to issue a call-for-WG-adoption (with a suitable lead period to read the document), followed by a WGLC, such that this document may make progress and “unblock” draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology also.

Best,

Thomas




> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: [e-mail]
> To: Thomas Heide Clausen <[e-mail]>, "Christopher Dearlove" <[e-mail]>, "Thomas H. Clausen" <[e-mail]>, Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming-00.txt
> Date: 11 Nov 2014 01:51:14 CET
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Thomas Heide Clausen and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming
> Revision:	00
> Title:		TLV Naming in the MANET Generalized Packet/Message Format
> Document date:	2014-11-10
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		16
> URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming/
> Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming-00
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>   TLVs (type-length-value structures) as defined by RFC5444 have both a
>   type (one octet) and a type extension (one octet), together forming a
>   full type (of two octets).  RFC5444 sets up IANA registries for TLV
>   types, specifying that an allocation of a TLV type entails creation
>   of an IANA registry for the corresponding type extensions.
> 
>   In some cases, reserving all 256 type extensions for use for a common
>   purpose for a given TLV is meaningful, and thus it makes sense to
>   record a common name for such a TLV type (and all of its type
>   extensions) in the corresponding IANA registries.  An example of such
>   is a LINK_METRIC TLV Type, with its type extensions reserved for use
>   to be indicating the "kind" of metric expressed by the value of the
>   TLV.
> 
>   In some other cases, there may not be 256 full types that share a
>   common purpose and, as such, it is not meaningful to record a common
>   name for all the type extensions for a TLV type in the corresponding
>   IANA registries.  Rather, it is appropriate to record an individual
>   name per full type.
> 
>   This document reorganizes the naming of already allocated TLV types
>   and type extensions in those registries to use names appropriately.
>   It has no consequences in terms of any protocol implementation.
> 
>   This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines from RFC5444,
>   so as to establish a policy for consistent naming of future TLV type
>   and type extension allocations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
>