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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

> 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
 
Oh! Harsh use of language.
But basically true.
 
So thanks to Thomas and Christopher for writing this document. I would love for this to move fast partly because it unblocks the other draft, and partly because it will set the WG up so that future work can be aligned.
 
If there is time on the agenda then it would be cool to spend some time explaining the plan f2f.
 
Adrian
 
From: Thomas Heide Clausen [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 11 November 2014 03:32
To: manet
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology and draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming-00.txt
 
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), 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