draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-02.txt   draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-03.txt 
Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET) C. Dearlove Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET) C. Dearlove
Internet-Draft BAE Systems ATC Internet-Draft BAE Systems ATC
Updates: 5444 (if approved) T. Clausen Updates: 5444 (if approved) T. Clausen
Intended status: Standards Track LIX, Ecole Polytechnique Intended status: Standards Track LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
Expires: November 8, 2015 May 7, 2015 Expires: November 14, 2015 May 13, 2015
TLV Naming in the MANET Generalized Packet/Message Format TLV Naming in the MANET Generalized Packet/Message Format
draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-02 draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-03
Abstract Abstract
TLVs (type-length-value structures) as defined by RFC5444 have both a This document reorganizes the naming of already allocated TLV (type-
type (one octet) and a type extension (one octet), together forming a length-value) types and type extensions in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork
full type (of two octets). RFC5444 sets up IANA registries for TLV (MANET) registries defined by RFC 5444 to use names appropriately.
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. It has no consequences in terms of any protocol implementation.
This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines from RFC5444, This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines from RFC
so as to establish a policy for consistent naming of future TLV type 5444, so as to establish a policy for consistent naming of future TLV
and type extension allocations. It makes no other changes to type and type extension allocations. It makes no other changes to
RFC5444. RFC 5444.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 8, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 14, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Updated IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Updated IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document reorganizes and rationalizes the naming of TLVs (type- This document reorganizes and rationalizes the naming of TLVs (type-
length-value structures), defined by [RFC5444] and recorded by IANA length-value structures), defined by [RFC5444] and recorded by IANA
in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters registries "Packet in the Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters registries "Packet
TLV Types", "Message TLV Types", and "Address Block TLV Types". TLV Types", "Message TLV Types", and "Address Block TLV Types".
This document reorganizes the naming of already allocated Packet, This document reorganizes the naming of already allocated Packet,
Message and Address Block TLV types, and their corresponding Type Message and Address Block TLV types, and their corresponding Type
skipping to change at page 4, line 47 skipping to change at page 3, line 47
defined. An example is the Address Block TLV LINK_STATUS defined in defined. An example is the Address Block TLV LINK_STATUS defined in
[RFC6130], where only type extension 0 is allocated. It is not [RFC6130], where only type extension 0 is allocated. It is not
reasonable to assume that the remaining 255 type extensions will be reasonable to assume that the remaining 255 type extensions will be
allocated to forms of LINK_STATUS. (Other forms of link status are allocated to forms of LINK_STATUS. (Other forms of link status are
already catered to by the introduction, in [RFC7188], of a registry already catered to by the introduction, in [RFC7188], of a registry
for values of the LINK_STATUS TLV.) Thus the name LINK_STATUS should for values of the LINK_STATUS TLV.) Thus the name LINK_STATUS should
be attached to that specific type extension for that type, i.e., to be attached to that specific type extension for that type, i.e., to
the full type, and not to the TLV type when used with all other type the full type, and not to the TLV type when used with all other type
extensions therefore. This was, however, not done as part of the extensions therefore. This was, however, not done as part of the
initial registration of this TLV type. Effectively, this leaves, for initial registration of this TLV type. Effectively, this leaves, for
the LINK_STAUS TLV type, the type extensions 1-255 either unavailable the LINK_STATUS TLV type, the type extensions 1-255 either
for allocation (if applying strictly the interpretation that they unavailable for allocation (if applying strictly the interpretation
must relate to a LINK_STATUS), or counterintuitively named for their that they must relate to a LINK_STATUS), or counterintuitively named
intended function. for their intended function.
The purpose of this document is to change how names of the second The purpose of this document is to change how names of the second
form are applied, and recorded in IANA registries, and to provide form are applied, and recorded in IANA registries, and to provide
guidelines and instructions for future TLV type allocations. This is guidelines and instructions for future TLV type allocations. This is
to facilitate the addition of new TLVs using type extensions other to facilitate the addition of new TLVs using type extensions other
than 0, but without them having inappropriate names attached. So, than 0, but without them having inappropriate names attached. So,
for example, LINK_STATUS will become the name of the full type (as for example, LINK_STATUS will become the name of the full type (as
composed by the TLV type 3 and the TLV type extension 0), and will composed by the TLV type 3 and the TLV type extension 0), and will
cease being the name of the TLV type 3. This leaves the question of cease being the name of the TLV type 3. This leaves the question of
how to name the type. As it is not clear what other TLVs might be how to name the type. As it is not clear what other TLVs might be
defined for other type extensions of the same type, it is proposed to defined for other type extensions of the same type, it is proposed to
leave the type currently unnamed, specified only by number. leave the type currently unnamed, specified only by number.
This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines from This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines from
[RFC5444], so as to establish a policy for consisteng naming of [RFC5444], so as to establish a policy for consistent naming of
future TLV type and type extension allocations. future TLV type and type extension allocations.
For clarity, all currently allocated TLVs in [RFC5497], [RFC6130], For clarity, all currently allocated TLVs in [RFC5497], [RFC6130],
[RFC7181] and [RFC7182] will be listed in the IANA considerations [RFC6621], [RFC7181] and [RFC7182] will be listed in the IANA
section of this document, indicating no change when that is considerations section of this document, indicating no change when
appropriate (such as the LINK_METRIC TLV). The only changes are of that is appropriate (such as the LINK_METRIC TLV, and including both
naming. TLVs defined in [RFC6621]). The only changes are of naming.
Note that nothing in this draft changes the operation of any Note that nothing in this draft changes the operation of any
protocol. This naming is already used, in effect, in [RFC6130] and protocol. This naming is already used, in effect, in [RFC6130] and
[RFC7181], currently the main users of allocated TLVs. For example [RFC7181], currently the main users of allocated TLVs. For example
the former indicates that all usage of LINK_STATUS refers to that TLV the former indicates that all usage of LINK_STATUS refers to that TLV
with type extension 0. with type extension 0.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
skipping to change at page 6, line 18 skipping to change at page 5, line 18
Packet TLV Type, Message TLV Type, and Address Block TLV Type Packet TLV Type, Message TLV Type, and Address Block TLV Type
allocations, from [RFC5444], and updates the registries for already allocations, from [RFC5444], and updates the registries for already
made allocations to follow these guidelines. made allocations to follow these guidelines.
3.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines 3.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines
For registration from the registries for Packet TLV Types, Message For registration from the registries for Packet TLV Types, Message
TLV Types, and Address Block TLV Types, the following guidelines TLV Types, and Address Block TLV Types, the following guidelines
apply, in addition to those given in section 6.1 in [RFC5444]: apply, in addition to those given in section 6.1 in [RFC5444]:
o If the reguested TLV Type immediately defines (but not necessarily o If the requested TLV Type immediately defines (but not necessarily
allocates) all the corresponding type extensions for versions of allocates) all the corresponding type extensions for versions of
that type, then a common name SHOULD be assigned for the TLV type. that type, then a common name SHOULD be assigned for the TLV type.
o Otherwise, if the reguested TLV Type does not immediately define o Otherwise, if the requested TLV Type does not immediately define
all the corresponding type extensions for versions of that type, all the corresponding type extensions for versions of that type,
then a common name SHOULD NOT be assigned for that TLV type. then a common name SHOULD NOT be assigned for that TLV type.
Instead, it is RECOMMENDED that: Instead, it is RECOMMENDED that:
* The "description" for the allocated TLV type be "Defined by * The "description" for the allocated TLV type be "Defined by
Type Extension"; Type Extension";
* For Packet TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, created * For Packet TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, created
for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Packet TLV Type for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Packet TLV Type
Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV
skipping to change at page 6, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
* For Message TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, * For Message TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry,
created for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Message TLV Type created for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Message TLV Type
Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV
Type. Type.
* For Address Block TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry, * For Address Block TLV Types, that the Type Extension registry,
created for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Address Block TLV created for the TLV Type, be named "Type XX Address Block TLV
Type Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of Type Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of
the TLV Type. the TLV Type.
* That each Type Extension be given a name when allocated. * That when a new Type Extension is required that, unless there
are reasons to the contrary, the next consecutive type
extension is allocated and given a name. (Reasons to the
contrary MAY include maintaining a correspondence between
corresponding Packet, Message, and Address Block TLVs, and
reserving type extension zero if not yet allocated.)
Note that the former case is unchanged by this specification, this Note that the former case is unchanged by this specification, this
currently includes TLV types named ICV, TIMESTAMP and LINK_METRIC. currently includes TLV types named ICV, TIMESTAMP and LINK_METRIC,
and the HELLO Message-Type-specific TLVs defined in [RFC6621].
3.2. Updated IANA Registries 3.2. Updated IANA Registries
The following changes all apply to the IANA registry "Mobile Ad hoc The following changes all apply to the IANA registry "Mobile Ad hoc
NETwork (MANET) Parameters". For clarity, registries that are NETwork (MANET) Parameters". For clarity, registries that are
unchanged, including those that define all type extensions of a TLV unchanged, including those that define all type extensions of a TLV
type, are listed as unchanged. type, are listed as unchanged.
The IANA registry "Packet TLV Types" is unchanged. The IANA registry "Packet TLV Types" is unchanged.
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 46
| 1 | CONT_SEQ_NUM | Specifies a content | [RFC7181] | | 1 | CONT_SEQ_NUM | Specifies a content | [RFC7181] |
| | (INCOMPLETE) | sequence number for this | | | | (INCOMPLETE) | sequence number for this | |
| | | incomplete message | | | | | incomplete message | |
| 2-223 | | Unassigned | | | 2-223 | | Unassigned | |
| 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC7181] | | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC7181] |
| | | Use | | | | | Use | |
+-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+ +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+
Table 5: Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions Table 5: Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions
The IANA Registry "HELLO Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types" is
unchanged.
The IANA Registry "TC Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types" is
unchanged.
The IANA Registry "Address Block TLV Types" is changed to Table 6. The IANA Registry "Address Block TLV Types" is changed to Table 6.
+---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
| Type | Description | Reference | | Type | Description | Reference |
+---------+-------------------------------+-----------+ +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | | 0 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] |
| 1 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] | | 1 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC5497] |
| 2 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] | | 2 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] |
| 3 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] | | 3 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] |
| 4 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] | | 4 | Defined by Type Extension | [RFC6130] |
skipping to change at page 12, line 47 skipping to change at page 11, line 47
| | | registry | | | | | registry | |
| | | [OTHER_NEIGHB TLV | | | | | [OTHER_NEIGHB TLV | |
| | | Values] | | | | | Values] | |
| 1-223 | | Unassigned | | | 1-223 | | Unassigned | |
| 224-255 | | Reserved for | [RFC6130] | | 224-255 | | Reserved for | [RFC6130] |
| | | Experimental Use | | | | | Experimental Use | |
+-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+ +-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+
Table 11: Type 4 Address Block TLV Type Extensions Table 11: Type 4 Address Block TLV Type Extensions
The IANA Registry "ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is The IANA Registry "ICV Address TLV Type Extensions" is renamed as
unchanged. "ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions" but is otherwise unchanged.
The IANA Registry "TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is The IANA Registry "TIMESTAMP Address TLV Type Extensions" is renamed
as "ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions" but is otherwise
unchanged. unchanged.
The IANA Registry "LINK_METRIC Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is The IANA Registry "LINK_METRIC Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is
unchanged. unchanged.
The IANA Registry "MPR Address Block Type Extensions" is renamed as The IANA Registry "MPR Address Block Type Extensions" is renamed as
"Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 12. "Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to Table 12.
+-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+ +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+
| Type | Name | Description | Reference | | Type | Name | Description | Reference |
skipping to change at page 13, line 26 skipping to change at page 12, line 26
| | | interpreted according to | | | | | interpreted according to | |
| | | the registry [MPR TLV Bit | | | | | the registry [MPR TLV Bit | |
| | | Values] | | | | | Values] | |
| 1-223 | | Unassigned | | | 1-223 | | Unassigned | |
| 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | This Document | | 224-255 | | Reserved for Experimental | This Document |
| | | Use | | | | | Use | |
+-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+ +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+
Table 12: Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions Table 12: Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions
The IANA Registry "NBR_ADDR_TYPES Address Block Type Extensions" is The IANA Registry "NBR_ADDR_TYPE Address Block Type Extensions" is
renamed as "Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to renamed as "Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to
Table 13. Table 13.
+-----------+----------------+-----------------+--------------------+ +-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+
| Type | Name | Description | Reference | | Type | Name | Description | Reference |
| Extension | | | | | Extension | | | |
+-----------+----------------+-----------------+--------------------+ +-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+
| 0 | NBR_ADDR_TYPES | This value is | [RFC7188][RFC7181] | | 0 | NBR_ADDR_TYPE | This value is to | [RFC7188][RFC7181] |
| | | to be | | | | | be interpreted | |
| | | interpreted | | | | | according to the | |
| | | according to | | | | | registry | |
| | | the registry | | | | | [NBR_ADDR_TYPE | |
| | | [NBR_ADDR_TYPE | | | | | Address Block | |
| | | Address Block | | | | | TLV Bit Values] | |
| | | TLV Bit Values] | | | 1-223 | | Unassigned | |
| 1-223 | | Unassigned | | | 224-255 | | Reserved for | This Document |
| 224-255 | | Reserved for | This Document | | | | Experimental Use | |
| | | Experimental | | +-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+
| | | Use | |
+-----------+----------------+-----------------+--------------------+
Table 13: Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions Table 13: Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions
The IANA Registry "GATEWAY Address Block Type Extensions" is renamed The IANA Registry "GATEWAY Address Block Type Extensions" is renamed
as "Type 10 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to as "Type 10 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to
Table 14. Table 14.
+-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+ +-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+
| Type | Name | Description | Reference | | Type | Name | Description | Reference |
| Extension | | | | | Extension | | | |
skipping to change at page 14, line 27 skipping to change at page 13, line 27
| | | router, with value | | | | | router, with value | |
| | | equal to the number of | | | | | equal to the number of | |
| | | hops | | | | | hops | |
| 1-223 | | Unassigned | | | 1-223 | | Unassigned | |
| 224-255 | | Reserved for | This Document | | 224-255 | | Reserved for | This Document |
| | | Experimental Use | | | | | Experimental Use | |
+-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+ +-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+
Table 14: Type 10 Address Block TLV Type Extensions Table 14: Type 10 Address Block TLV Type Extensions
The IANA Registry "HELLO Message-Type-specific Address Block TLV
Types" is unchanged.
The IANA Registry "TC Message-Type-specific Address Block TLV Types"
is unchanged.
Note: This document adds reservations for experimental use, omitted Note: This document adds reservations for experimental use, omitted
in [RFC7181], to the last three tables. in [RFC7181], to the last three tables.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
As this document is concerned only with how entities are named, those As this document is concerned only with how entities are named, those
names being used only in documents such as this and IANA registries, names being used only in documents such as this and IANA registries,
this document has no security considerations. this document has no security considerations.
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for having pointed out The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for pointing out the
the need for reorganization and rationalization the naming of TLVs need to reorganize and rationalize the naming of the TLVs defined by
(type-length-value structures), defined by [RFC5444]. [RFC5444], and Tom Taylor for pointing out some omissions and errors.
6. Normative References 6. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih, [RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih,
"Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444, "Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444,
February 2009. February 2009.
[RFC5497] Clausen, T. and C. Dearlove, "Representing Multi-Value [RFC5497] Clausen, T. and C. Dearlove, "Representing Multi-Value
Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 5497, Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 5497,
March 2009. March 2009.
[RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "Mobile Ad Hoc [RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "Mobile Ad Hoc
Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)",
RFC 6130, April 2011. RFC 6130, April 2011.
[RFC6621] Macker, J., "Simplified Multicast Forwarding", RFC 6621,
May 2012.
[RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
"The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2", "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2",
RFC 7181, April 2014. RFC 7181, April 2014.
[RFC7182] Herberg, U., Clausen, T., and C. Dearlove, "Integrity [RFC7182] Herberg, U., Clausen, T., and C. Dearlove, "Integrity
Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 7182, April 2014. Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 7182, April 2014.
[RFC7188] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Optimized Link State Routing [RFC7188] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Optimized Link State Routing
Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
75 lines changed or deleted 76 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/