





Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       C. Dearlove
Request for Comments: 7631                               BAE Systems ATC
Updates: 5444                                                 T. Clausen
Category: Standards Track                       LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
ISSN: 2070-1721                                           September 2015


            TLV Naming in the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET)
                   Generalized Packet/Message Format

Abstract

   This document reorganizes the naming of already-allocated TLV (type-
   length-value) types and type extensions in the "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork
   (MANET) Parameters" registries defined by RFC 5444 to use names
   appropriately.  It has no consequences in terms of any protocol
   implementation.

   This document also updates the Expert Review guidelines in RFC 5444,
   so as to establish a policy for consistent naming of future TLV type
   and type extension allocations.  It makes no other changes to
   RFC 5444.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7631.















Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
   2. Terminology .....................................................4
   3. IANA Considerations .............................................4
      3.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines .......................5
      3.2. Updated IANA Registries ....................................6
   4. Security Considerations ........................................13
   5. References .....................................................13
      5.1. Normative References ......................................13
      5.2. Informative References ....................................14
   Acknowledgments ...................................................15
   Authors' Addresses ................................................15























Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


1.  Introduction

   This document reorganizes and rationalizes the naming of TLVs (type-
   length-value structures) defined by [RFC5444] and recorded by IANA in
   the following subregistries of the "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET)
   Parameters" registry: "Packet TLV Types", "Message TLV Types", and
   "Address Block TLV Types".

   This document reorganizes the naming of already-allocated Packet,
   Message, and Address Block TLV types, and their corresponding type
   extensions.  It also updates the corresponding IANA registries.

   TLVs have a type (one octet) and a type extension (one octet) that
   together form a full type (of two octets).  A TLV may omit the type
   extension when it is zero.  However, that applies only to its
   representation; it still has a type extension of zero.  A TLV type
   defines an IANA registry of type extensions for that type.

   There have been two forms of TLV allocation.

   The first, but less common, form of allocation has been that
   allocation of the TLV type has defined (but not necessarily
   allocated) all the type extensions for that TLV type.  This applies,
   for example, to the Address Block TLV LINK_METRIC specified in
   [RFC7181].  The LINK_METRIC type extensions are all available for
   allocation for different definitions of link metric.  It is
   appropriate in this case to apply the name LINK_METRIC to the type,
   and also to all the full types corresponding to that type, as has
   been done.  Type extensions can then be individually named or can be
   simply referred to by their number.

   The second, more common, form of allocation has been that allocation
   of the TLV type has defined only type extension 0, and possibly type
   extension 1, for that TLV type.  An example is the Address Block TLV
   LINK_STATUS defined in [RFC6130], where only type extension 0 is
   allocated.  It is not reasonable to assume that the remaining 255
   type extensions will be allocated to forms of LINK_STATUS.  (Other
   forms of link status are already catered to by the introduction, in
   [RFC7188], of a registry for values of the LINK_STATUS TLV.)  Thus,
   the name LINK_STATUS should be attached to the specific type
   extension for that type, i.e., to the full type and not to the TLV
   type when used with any other type extensions.  This was, however,
   not done as part of the initial registration of this TLV type.
   Effectively, this leaves, for the LINK_STATUS TLV type, the type
   extensions 1-255 either unavailable for allocation (if applying
   strictly the interpretation that they must relate to a LINK_STATUS)
   or counterintuitively named for their intended function.




Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


   The purpose of this document is to change how names of the second
   form are applied and recorded in IANA registries, and to provide
   guidelines and instructions for future TLV type allocations.  This is
   to facilitate the addition of new TLVs using type extensions other
   than 0, but without them having inappropriate names attached.  So,
   for example, LINK_STATUS will become the name of the full type
   (composed of 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
   how to name the type.  As it is not clear what other TLVs might be
   defined for other type extensions of the same type, the type is
   currently left unnamed and specified only by number.

   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.

   For clarity, all currently allocated TLVs in [RFC5497], [RFC6130],
   [RFC6621], [RFC7181], and [RFC7182] are listed in the IANA
   Considerations section of this document, each specifying the updates
   or indicating no change when that is appropriate (such as the
   LINK_METRIC TLV and both TLVs defined in [RFC6621]).  The only
   changes are of naming.

   Note that nothing in this document changes the operation of any
   protocol.  This naming is already used, in effect, in [RFC6130] and
   [RFC7181], currently the main users of allocated TLVs.  For example,
   the former indicates that all usage of LINK_STATUS refers to that TLV
   with type extension 0.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

   All references to elements such as "packet", "message", and "TLV" in
   this document refer to those defined in [RFC5444].

3.  IANA Considerations

   This document updates the Expert Review evaluation guidelines for
   allocations in [RFC5444] in the "Packet TLV Types", "Message TLV
   Types", and "Address Block TLV Types" registries and updates the
   already-made allocations to conform with these guidelines.






Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


3.1.  Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines

   For registration in the "Packet TLV Types", "Message TLV Types", and
   "Address Block TLV Types" registries, the following guidelines apply,
   in addition to those given in Section 6.1 in [RFC5444]:

   o  If the requested TLV type immediately defines (but not necessarily
      allocates) all the corresponding type extensions for versions of
      that type, then a common name SHOULD be assigned for the TLV type.

      This case is unchanged by this specification.  This currently
      includes TLV types named ICV, TIMESTAMP, and LINK_METRIC; it also
      includes the HELLO Message-Type-specific TLVs defined in
      [RFC6621].

   o  Otherwise, if the requested TLV type does not immediately define
      all the corresponding type extensions for versions of that type,
      then a common name SHOULD NOT be assigned for that TLV type.
      Instead, it is RECOMMENDED that:

      *  The "description" for the allocated TLV type be "Defined by
         Type Extension".

      *  For Packet TLV Types, the type extension registry, created for
         the TLV type, be named "Type XX Packet TLV Type Extensions",
         with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV type.

      *  For Message TLV Types, the type extension registry, created for
         the TLV type, be named "Type XX Message TLV Type Extensions",
         with XX replaced by the numerical value of the TLV type.

      *  For Address Block TLV Types, the type extension registry,
         created for the TLV type, be named "Type XX Address Block TLV
         Type Extensions", with XX replaced by the numerical value of
         the TLV type.

      *  When a new type extension is required, 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.)









Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


3.2.  Updated IANA Registries

   The following changes (including correction of some existing minor
   errors) apply to the IANA registry "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET)
   Parameters".  For clarity, registries that are unchanged, including
   those that define all type extensions of a TLV type, are listed as
   unchanged.

   The IANA registry "Packet TLV Types" is unchanged.

   The IANA registry "ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged.

   The IANA registry "TIMESTAMP Packet TLV Type Extensions" is
   unchanged.

   The IANA registry "Message TLV Types" is changed to match Table 1.

          +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
          |   Type  | Description                   | Reference |
          +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
          |    0    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC5497] |
          |    1    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC5497] |
          |   2-4   | Unassigned                    |           |
          |    5    | ICV                           | [RFC7182] |
          |    6    | TIMESTAMP                     | [RFC7182] |
          |    7    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC7181] |
          |    8    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC7181] |
          |  9-223  | Unassigned                    |           |
          | 224-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | [RFC5444] |
          +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+

                        Table 1: Message TLV Types



















Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


   The IANA registry "INTERVAL_TIME Message Type Extensions" has been
   renamed "Type 0 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to match
   Table 2.

   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
   |    Type   |      Name     | Description               | Reference |
   | Extension |               |                           |           |
   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
   |     0     | INTERVAL_TIME | The maximum time before   | [RFC5497] |
   |           |               | another message of the    |           |
   |           |               | same type as this message |           |
   |           |               | from the same originator  |           |
   |           |               | should be received        |           |
   |   1-223   |               | Unassigned                |           |
   |  224-255  |               | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] |
   |           |               | Use                       |           |
   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+

                Table 2: Type 0 Message TLV Type Extensions

   The IANA registry "VALIDITY_TIME Message Type Extensions" has been
   renamed "Type 1 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to match
   Table 3.

   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
   |    Type   |      Name     | Description               | Reference |
   | Extension |               |                           |           |
   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
   |     0     | VALIDITY_TIME | The time from receipt of  | [RFC5497] |
   |           |               | the message during which  |           |
   |           |               | the information contained |           |
   |           |               | in the message is to be   |           |
   |           |               | considered valid          |           |
   |   1-223   |               | Unassigned                |           |
   |  224-255  |               | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] |
   |           |               | Use                       |           |
   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+

                Table 3: Type 1 Message TLV Type Extensions

   The IANA registry "ICV Message TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged.

   The IANA registry "TIMESTAMP Message TLV Type Extensions" is
   unchanged.







Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


   The IANA registry "MPR_WILLING Message Type Extensions" has been
   renamed "Type 7 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to match
   Table 4.

   +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
   |    Type   |     Name    | Description                 | Reference |
   | Extension |             |                             |           |
   +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
   |     0     | MPR_WILLING | Bits 0-3 specify the        | [RFC7181] |
   |           |             | originating router's        |           |
   |           |             | willingness to act as a     |           |
   |           |             | flooding MPR; bits 4-7      |           |
   |           |             | specify the originating     |           |
   |           |             | router's willingness to act |           |
   |           |             | as a routing MPR            |           |
   |   1-223   |             | Unassigned                  |           |
   |  224-255  |             | Reserved for Experimental   | [RFC7181] |
   |           |             | Use                         |           |
   +-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+

                Table 4: Type 7 Message TLV Type Extensions

   The IANA registry "CONT_SEQ_NUM Message Type Extensions" has been
   renamed "Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to match
   Table 5.

   +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+
   |    Type   |     Name     | Description                | Reference |
   | Extension |              |                            |           |
   +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+
   |     0     | CONT_SEQ_NUM | Specifies a content        | [RFC7181] |
   |           |  (COMPLETE)  | sequence number for this   |           |
   |           |              | complete message           |           |
   |     1     | CONT_SEQ_NUM | Specifies a content        | [RFC7181] |
   |           | (INCOMPLETE) | sequence number for this   |           |
   |           |              | incomplete message         |           |
   |   2-223   |              | Unassigned                 |           |
   |  224-255  |              | Reserved for Experimental  | [RFC7181] |
   |           |              | Use                        |           |
   +-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+

                Table 5: Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions

   The IANA registry "HELLO Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types" is
   unchanged.

   The IANA registry "SMF_TYPE Message TLV Type Extensions" is
   unchanged.



Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                    [Page 8]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


   The IANA registry "TC Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types" is
   unchanged.

   The IANA registry "Address Block TLV Types" has been changed to match
   Table 6.

          +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
          |   Type  | Description                   | Reference |
          +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
          |    0    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC5497] |
          |    1    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC5497] |
          |    2    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC6130] |
          |    3    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC6130] |
          |    4    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC6130] |
          |    5    | ICV                           | [RFC7182] |
          |    6    | TIMESTAMP                     | [RFC7182] |
          |    7    | LINK_METRIC                   | [RFC7181] |
          |    8    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC7181] |
          |    9    | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC7181] |
          |    10   | Defined by Type Extension     | [RFC7181] |
          |  11-223 | Unassigned                    |           |
          | 224-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | [RFC5444] |
          +---------+-------------------------------+-----------+

                     Table 6: Address Block TLV Types

   The IANA registry "INTERVAL_TIME Address Block TLV Type Extensions"
   has been renamed "Type 0 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and
   changed to match Table 7.

   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
   |    Type   |      Name     | Description               | Reference |
   | Extension |               |                           |           |
   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
   |     0     | INTERVAL_TIME | The maximum time before   | [RFC5497] |
   |           |               | another message of the    |           |
   |           |               | same type as this message |           |
   |           |               | from the same originator  |           |
   |           |               | and containing this       |           |
   |           |               | address should be         |           |
   |           |               | received                  |           |
   |   1-223   |               | Unassigned                |           |
   |  224-255  |               | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] |
   |           |               | Use                       |           |
   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+

             Table 7: Type 0 Address Block TLV Type Extensions




Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                    [Page 9]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


   The IANA registry "VALIDITY_TIME Address Block TLV Type Extensions"
   has been renamed "Type 1 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and
   changed to match Table 8.

   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
   |    Type   |      Name     | Description               | Reference |
   | Extension |               |                           |           |
   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
   |     0     | VALIDITY_TIME | The time from receipt of  | [RFC5497] |
   |           |               | the address during which  |           |
   |           |               | the information regarding |           |
   |           |               | this address is to be     |           |
   |           |               | considered valid          |           |
   |   1-223   |               | Unassigned                |           |
   |  224-255  |               | Reserved for Experimental | [RFC5497] |
   |           |               | Use                       |           |
   +-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+

             Table 8: Type 1 Address Block TLV Type Extensions

   The IANA registry "LOCAL_IF Address Block TLV Type Extensions" has
   been renamed "Type 2 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed
   to match Table 9.

   +-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+
   |    Type   |   Name   | Description           | Reference          |
   | Extension |          |                       |                    |
   +-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+
   |     0     | LOCAL_IF | This value is to be   | [RFC7188][RFC6130] |
   |           |          | interpreted according |                    |
   |           |          | to the registry       |                    |
   |           |          | "LOCAL_IF TLV Values" |                    |
   |   1-223   |          | Unassigned            |                    |
   |  224-255  |          | Reserved for          | [RFC6130]          |
   |           |          | Experimental Use      |                    |
   +-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+

             Table 9: Type 2 Address Block TLV Type Extensions













Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                   [Page 10]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


   The IANA registry "LINK_STATUS Address Block TLV Type Extensions" has
   been renamed "Type 3 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed
   to match Table 10.

   +-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+
   |    Type   |     Name    | Description        | Reference          |
   | Extension |             |                    |                    |
   +-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+
   |     0     | LINK_STATUS | This value is to   | [RFC7188][RFC6130] |
   |           |             | be interpreted     |                    |
   |           |             | according to the   |                    |
   |           |             | registry           |                    |
   |           |             | "LINK_STATUS TLV   |                    |
   |           |             | Values"            |                    |
   |   1-223   |             | Unassigned         |                    |
   |  224-255  |             | Reserved for       | [RFC6130]          |
   |           |             | Experimental Use   |                    |
   +-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+

            Table 10: Type 3 Address Block TLV Type Extensions

   The IANA registry "OTHER_NEIGHB Address Block TLV Type Extensions"
   has been renamed "Type 4 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and
   changed to match Table 11.

   +-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+
   |    Type   |     Name     | Description       | Reference          |
   | Extension |              |                   |                    |
   +-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+
   |     0     | OTHER_NEIGHB | This value is to  | [RFC7188][RFC6130] |
   |           |              | be interpreted    |                    |
   |           |              | according to the  |                    |
   |           |              | registry          |                    |
   |           |              | "OTHER_NEIGHB TLV |                    |
   |           |              | Values"           |                    |
   |   1-223   |              | Unassigned        |                    |
   |  224-255  |              | Reserved for      | [RFC6130]          |
   |           |              | Experimental Use  |                    |
   +-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+

            Table 11: Type 4 Address Block TLV Type Extensions

   The IANA registry "ICV Address TLV Type Extensions" has been renamed
   "ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions" but is otherwise unchanged.

   The IANA registry "TIMESTAMP Address TLV Type Extensions" has been
   renamed "TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV Type Extensions" but is
   otherwise unchanged.



Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                   [Page 11]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


   The IANA registry "LINK_METRIC Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is
   unchanged.

   The IANA registry "MPR Address Block TLV Type Extensions" has been
   renamed "Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed to
   match Table 12.

   +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+
   |    Type   | Name | Description               | Reference          |
   | Extension |      |                           |                    |
   +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+
   |     0     | MPR  | This value is to be       | [RFC7188][RFC7181] |
   |           |      | interpreted according to  |                    |
   |           |      | the registry "MPR TLV Bit |                    |
   |           |      | Values"                   |                    |
   |   1-223   |      | Unassigned                |                    |
   |  224-255  |      | Reserved for Experimental | RFC 7631 (this     |
   |           |      | Use                       | document)          |
   +-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+

            Table 12: Type 8 Address Block TLV Type Extensions

   The IANA registry "NBR_ADDR_TYPE Address Block TLV Type Extensions"
   has been renamed "Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and
   changed to match Table 13.

   +-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+
   |    Type   |      Name     | Description      | Reference          |
   | Extension |               |                  |                    |
   +-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+
   |     0     | NBR_ADDR_TYPE | This value is to | [RFC7188][RFC7181] |
   |           |               | be interpreted   |                    |
   |           |               | according to the |                    |
   |           |               | registry         |                    |
   |           |               | "NBR_ADDR_TYPE   |                    |
   |           |               | Address Block    |                    |
   |           |               | TLV Bit Values"  |                    |
   |   1-223   |               | Unassigned       |                    |
   |  224-255  |               | Reserved for     | RFC 7631 (this     |
   |           |               | Experimental Use | document)          |
   +-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+

            Table 13: Type 9 Address Block TLV Type Extensions








Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                   [Page 12]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


   The IANA registry "GATEWAY Address Block TLV Type Extensions" has
   been renamed "Type 10 Address Block TLV Type Extensions" and changed
   to match Table 14.

   +-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+
   |    Type   |   Name  | Description            | Reference          |
   | Extension |         |                        |                    |
   +-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+
   |     0     | GATEWAY | Specifies that a given | [RFC7188][RFC7181] |
   |           |         | network address is     |                    |
   |           |         | reached via a gateway  |                    |
   |           |         | on the originating     |                    |
   |           |         | router, with value     |                    |
   |           |         | equal to the number of |                    |
   |           |         | hops                   |                    |
   |   1-223   |         | Unassigned             |                    |
   |  224-255  |         | Reserved for           | RFC 7631 (this     |
   |           |         | Experimental Use       | document)          |
   +-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+

            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 "SMF_NBR_TYPE Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is
   unchanged.

   The IANA registry "TC Message-Type-specific Address Block TLV Types"
   is unchanged.

   Note: This document adds reservations for Experimental Use [RFC5226],
   omitted in [RFC7181], to the last three tables.

4.  Security Considerations

   As this document is concerned only with how entities are named, those
   names being used only in documents such as this and IANA registries,
   this document has no security considerations.

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.



Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                   [Page 13]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


   [RFC5444]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih,
              "Generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Packet/Message
              Format", RFC 5444, DOI 10.17487/RFC5444, February 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5444>.

   [RFC5497]  Clausen, T. and C. Dearlove, "Representing Multi-Value
              Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 5497,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5497, March 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5497>.

   [RFC6130]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc
              Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)",
              RFC 6130, DOI 10.17487/RFC6130, April 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6130>.

   [RFC6621]  Macker, J., Ed., "Simplified Multicast Forwarding",
              RFC 6621, DOI 10.17487/RFC6621, May 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6621>.

   [RFC7181]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
              "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
              RFC 7181, DOI 10.17487/RFC7181, April 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7181>.

   [RFC7182]  Herberg, U., Clausen, T., and C. Dearlove, "Integrity
              Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad
              Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 7182, DOI 10.17487/RFC7182,
              April 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7182>.

   [RFC7188]  Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Optimized Link State Routing
              Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood
              Discovery Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs", RFC 7188,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7188, April 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7188>.

5.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.










Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                   [Page 14]

RFC 7631                       TLV Naming                 September 2015


Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for pointing out the
   need to reorganize and rationalize the naming of the TLVs defined by
   [RFC5444] and Tom Taylor and the RFC Editor for pointing out some
   omissions and errors.

Authors' Addresses

   Christopher Dearlove
   BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
   West Hanningfield Road
   Great Baddow, Chelmsford
   United Kingdom

   Phone: +44 1245 242194
   Email: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com
   URI:   http://www.baesystems.com/


   Thomas Heide Clausen
   LIX, Ecole Polytechnique

   Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
   Email: T.Clausen@computer.org
   URI:   http://www.ThomasClausen.org/

























Dearlove & Clausen           Standards Track                   [Page 15]

