<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<rfc number="7188" category="std" ipr="trust200902" updates="6130, 7181"
submissionType="IETF" >

<front>

<title abbrev="NHDP and OLSRv2 Extension TLVs">
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET&nbsp;Neighborhood&nbsp;Discovery&nbsp;Protocol&nbsp;(NHDP)&nbsp;Extension&nbsp;TLVs
</title>

<author initials="C.M." surname="Dearlove" fullname="Christopher Dearlove">
<organization abbrev="BAE Systems ATC">BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>
West Hanningfield Road
</street>
<city>
Great Baddow, Chelmsford
</city>
<country>
United Kingdom
</country>
</postal>
<phone>+44 1245 242194</phone>
<email>chris.dearlove@baesystems.com</email>
<uri>http://www.baesystems.com/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="T.H." surname="Clausen" fullname="Thomas Heide Clausen">
<organization>LIX, Ecole Polytechnique</organization>
<address>
<phone>+33 6 6058 9349</phone>
<email>T.Clausen@computer.org</email>
<uri>http://www.ThomasClausen.org/</uri>
</address>
</author>

<date month="April" year="2014"/>
<area/>
<workgroup>Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET)</workgroup>

<keyword>MANET</keyword>
<keyword>OLSRv2</keyword>
<keyword>NHDP</keyword>
<keyword>TLV</keyword>

<abstract>
<t>
This specification describes extensions to definitions of TLVs used by the
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and the MANET
Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) to increase their abilities to
accommodate protocol extensions. This document updates RFC 7181 (OLSRv2) and
RFC 6130 (NHDP).
</t>
</abstract>

</front>

<middle>
<section title="Introduction">

	<t>
		The MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) <xref
target="RFC6130"/> and the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2
(OLSRv2) <xref target="RFC7181"/> are protocols for use in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks (MANETs) <xref target="RFC2501"/>, based on the Generalized MANET
Packet/Message Format <xref target="RFC5444"/>.  
	</t>
	
	<t>
    	This document updates <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref
target="RFC7181"/>, specifically their use of TLV (Type-Length-Value) elements,
to increase the extensibility of these protocols and to enable some
improvements in their implementation. 
	</t>
	<t>
		This specification  reduces the latitude of implementations of
<xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/> to consider some
messages, which will not be 
   created by implementations simply following those specifications, as
   a reason to consider the message as "badly formed", and thus as a
   reason to reject the message.  This gives greater latitude to the
   creation of extensions of these protocols, in particular extensions
   that will interoperate with unextended implementations of those
   protocols.  As part of that, it indicates how TLVs with
   unexpected value fields must be handled, and adds some additional
   options to those TLVs.
	</t>
	<t>
		Note that TLVs with unknown type or type extension are already
specified as to be ignored by <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref
target="RFC7181"/> and also are not a reason to reject a message. 
	</t>

</section>
<section title="Terminology" anchor="terminology">

  <t>
    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
    <xref target="RFC2119"/>.
  </t>

  <t>
    Additionally, this document uses the terminology of
    <xref target="RFC5444"/>, <xref target="RFC6130"/>, and
    <xref target="RFC7181"/>.
  </t>

</section>
<section title="Applicability Statement">

  <t>
    This document updates the specification of the protocols described in <xref
target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/>.
  </t>
  
  <t>
  	Specifically, this specification updates <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/> in the following ways:
  	<list style="symbols">
  		<t>
				Removes the latitude of rejecting a message
with a TLV with a known type, but with an unexpected TLV Value field, for the
TLV Types defined in <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/>. 
		</t>
		<t>
				Specifies the handling of a TLV Value field
with unexpected length. 
		</t>
		<t> 
				Sets up IANA registries for TLV Values for the
Address Block TLVs: 
					<list style="symbols">
						<t>	
							LOCAL_IF, defined in <xref target="RFC6130"/>.
						</t>			
						<t>
							LINK_STATUS, defined in <xref target="RFC6130"/>.
						</t>
						<t>
							OTHER_NEIGHB, defined in <xref target="RFC6130"/>.
						</t>
						<t>
							MPR, defined in <xref target="RFC7181"/>, now considered as a bit field.
						</t>
						<t>
							NBR_ADDR_TYPE, defined
in <xref target="RFC7181"/>, now considered as a bit field. 
						</t>
					</list>
		</t>
		<t>
				Defines a well-known TLV Value for
"UNSPECIFIED" for the Address Block TLV Types LOCAL_IF, LINK_STATUS, and
OTHER_NEIGHB, all defined in <xref target="RFC6130"/>. 
		</t>
  	</list>
  </t>
</section>
<section title="TLV Values">

	<t>
		NHDP <xref target="RFC6130"/> and OLSRv2 <xref
target="RFC7181"/> define a number of TLVs within the framework of <xref
target="RFC5444"/>.  
		
		These TLVs define the meaning of only some of the contents that 
can be found in a TLV Value field. This limitation may be either defining only
certain TLV Values or considering only some lengths of the TLV Value fields (or
a single-value field in a multivalue Address-Block TLV).
		
		This specification describes how NHDP <xref target="RFC6130"/>
and OLSRv2 <xref target="RFC7181"/> are to handle TLVs with other TLV Value
fields. 
	</t>

	<section title="Unrecognized TLV Values">
		<t>
			NHDP and OLSRv2 specify that, in addition to
well-defined reasons (in the respective protocol specifications), an
implementation of these protocols MAY recognize a message as "badly formed" and
therefore "invalid for processing" for other reasons (Section 12.1 of <xref
target="RFC6130"/> and Section 16.3.1 of <xref target="RFC7181"/>). These
sections could be interpreted as allowing rejection of a message because a TLV
Value field is unrecognized. This specification removes that latitude: 
				<list style="symbols"> 
    				<t> 
		    		  	An implementation MUST NOT reject a
message because it contains an unrecognized TLV value. Instead, any
unrecognized TLV Value field MUST be processed or ignored by an unextended
implementation of NHDP or OLSRv2, as described in the following sections. 
    				</t>

					<t>
						Hence, this specification
removes the 7th, 10th, and 11th bullets in Section 12.1 of <xref
target="RFC6130"/>. 
					</t>
	    		</list>    
		</t>		
		<t>
    		It should be stressed that this is not a change to <xref
target="RFC6130"/> or <xref target="RFC7181"/>, except with regard to not
allowing this to be a reason for rejection of a message. <xref
target="RFC6130"/> or <xref target="RFC7181"/> are specified in terms such as
"if an address is associated with a value of LOST by a LINK_STATUS
TLV". Association with an unrecognized value has no effect on any
implementation strictly following such a specification. 
		</t>
			
	</section>

	<section title="TLV Value Lengths">
		<t>
			The TLVs specified in <xref target="RFC6130"/> and
<xref target="RFC7181"/> may be either single-value or multivalue TLVs. In
either case, the length of each item of information encoded in the TLV Value
field is the "single-length", defined and calculated as in Section 5.4.1 of
<xref target="RFC5444"/>. All TLVs specified in <xref target="RFC6130"/> and
<xref target="RFC7181"/> have a one- or two-octet single-length. These are
considered the expected single-lengths of such a received TLV. 
		</t>
		<t>
			Other single-length TLV Value fields may be introduced
by extensions to <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/>. This
document specifies how implementations of <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref
target="RFC7181"/>, or extensions thereof, MUST behave on receiving TLVs of the
TLV types defined in <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/>, but
with TLV Value fields with other single-length values. 
		</t>
		<t>
			The following principles apply:
			<list style="symbols">
				<t>
					If the received single-length is
greater than the expected single-length, then the excess octets MUST be
ignored. 
				</t>
				<t> 
      If the received single-length is less than the expected single-length, then the absent octets MUST be considered to have all bits
      cleared (0).
				</t>
			</list>
		</t>
		<t>
			Exception:
			<list style="symbols">
				<t>
					A received CONT_SEQ_NUM with a
single-length &lt; 2 SHOULD be considered an error. 
				</t>
			</list>
		</t>
		
		
	</section>	

	<section title="Undefined TLV Values">
		<t>
			<xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/> 
define a number of TLVs, but for some of these TLVs they specify meanings for
only some TLV Values. This document establishes IANA registries for these TLV
Values, with initial registrations reflecting those used by <xref
target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/>, and as specified in <xref
target="unspecified_value"/>. 
		</t>
		<t>
			There are different cases of TLV Values with different
characteristics. These cases are considered in this section. 
		</t>
		
		<section title="NHDP TLVs: LOCAL_IF, LINK_STATUS, and OTHER_NEIGHB">
			<t>
				For the Address-Block TLVs LOCAL_IF,
LINK_STATUS, and OTHER_NEIGHB TLVs, defined in <xref target="RFC6130"/>, only a
limited number of values are specified for each. These are converted, by this
specification, into extensible registries with initial registrations for values
defined and used by <xref target="RFC6130"/> -- see <xref target="IANA"/>. 
			</t>
			<t>
				An implementation of <xref target="RFC6130"/> 
that receives a LOCAL_IF, LINK_STATUS, or OTHER_NEIGHB TLV with any TLV Value
other than the values that are defined in <xref target="RFC6130"/> MUST ignore
that TLV Value, as well as any corresponding attribute association to the
address. 
			</t>

		</section>
				
		<section title="OLSRv2 TLVs: MPR and NBR_ADDR_TYPE">
	    	<t>
   The Address-Block TLVs MPR and NBR_ADDR_TYPE, defined in <xref target="RFC7181"/>,
   are similar to those defined in <xref target="RFC6130"/> in having only limited
   values specified (1, 2, and 3): 1 and 2 represent the presence of
   two different attributes associated to an address, and 3 represents
   "both 1 and 2".
			</t>
			<t>
				These TLV Value fields are, by this
specification, converted to bit fields and MUST be interpreted as such. As the
existing definitions of values 1, 2, and 3 behave in that manner, it is likely
that this will involve no change to an implementation, but any test of (for
example) Value = 1 or Value = 3 MUST be converted to a test of (for example)
Value bitand 1 = 1, where "bitand" denotes a bitwise AND operation. 
	    	</t>
	    	<t>
	    		This specification creates registries for recording 
reservations of the individual bits in these bit fields, with initial
registrations for values defined and used by <xref target="RFC7181"/> -- see
<xref target="IANA"/>. 
	    	</t>
	    	<t>
	    		Other TLVs defined by <xref target="RFC7181"/> are not
affected by this specification. 
	    	</t>
		</section>
		
		<section title="Unspecified TLV Values" anchor="unspecified_value">
			<t>
                	The registries defined in Section 5 for the LOCAL_IF,
LINK_STATUS, and OTHER_NEIGHB TLVs each include an additional TLV Value
UNSPECIFIED. 

   This TLV Value represents a defined value that, like currently
   undefined TLV Values, indicates that no information is associated
   with this address; the defined value will always have this
   meaning.
 Such a TLV Value may be used to enable the creation
of more efficient multivalue Address Block TLVs or to simplify an
implementation. 
			</t>
			<t>
				The similar requirement for the MPR and
NBR_ADDR_TYPES TLVs is already satisfied by the TLV Value zero, provided that
each bit in the TLV Value is defined as set ('1') when indicating the presence
of an attribute, or clear ('0') when indicating the absence of an
attribute. Therefore, this is required for registrations from the relevant
registries; see <xref target="IANA"/>. 
			</t>
			<t>
				For the LINK_METRIC TLV, this is already
possible by clearing the most significant bits (0 to 3) of the first octet of
the TLV Value. It is RECOMMENDED that in this case the remaining bits of the
TLV Value are either all clear ('0') or all set ('1'). 
			</t>

		</section>
	</section>
</section>

<section title="IANA Considerations" anchor="IANA">
	<t>
   		IANA has completed the ten actions set out in the
following sections. 
   	</t>

	<section title="LOCAL_IF Address Block TLVs">

		<section title="New Registry">
			<t>
IANA has created a new sub-registry
called "LOCAL_IF TLV Values" within the "Mobile Ad hoc
NETwork (MANET) Parameters" registry. 
		   </t>
		   <t>
			IANA has populated this registry as specified in <xref target="LOCAL_IF"/>.
			</t>

<?rfc compact="no"?>
			<texttable anchor="LOCAL_IF" title="LOCAL_IF TLV Values">
				<ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Name</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>

				<c>0</c>
				<c>THIS_IF</c>
				<c>The network address is associated with this local interface of the sending router</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>1</c>
				<c>OTHER_IF</c>
				<c>The network address is associated with another local interface of the sending router</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>2-223</c>
				<c></c>
				<c>Unassigned</c>
				<c></c>

				<c>224-254</c>
				<c></c>
				<c>Reserved for Experimental Use</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>255</c>
				<c>UNSPECIFIED</c>
				<c>No information about this network address is provided</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>
			</texttable>

<?rfc compact="yes"?>			
			<t>
				New assignments are to be made by Expert Review <xref target="RFC5226"/>.
			</t>
			<t> 
				The Designated Experts are required to use the
guidelines specified in <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/>.
			</t>
		</section>
		
		<section title="Modification to Existing Registry">
			<t>
IANA maintains a sub-registry called "LOCAL_IF Address Block
TLV Type Extensions" within the "Mobile Ad hoc
NETwork (MANET) Parameters" registry. This sub-registry already had an entry for value 0.
IANA has replaced the entry in the Description column for this value with the
text "This value is to be interpreted according to the registry LOCAL_IF TLV
Values".  The resulting table is as specified in <xref
target="LOCAL_IF_Address_Block_TLV_Type_Extensions_Modifications"/>. 
			</t>
<?rfc compact="no"?>
			<texttable title="LOCAL_IF Address Block TLV Type Extensions Modifications" anchor="LOCAL_IF_Address_Block_TLV_Type_Extensions_Modifications">
				<ttcol align='left'>Type Extension</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>
				<c>0</c>
				<c>
					This value is to be interpreted according to the registry LOCAL_IF TLV Values
				</c>
				<c>
					RFC&nbsp;6130, RFC&nbsp;7188 
				</c>
				
				<c>
					1-255
				</c>
				<c>
					Unassigned
				</c>
				<c>
				</c>
		    </texttable>			
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
		</section>

	</section>
	
	<section title="LINK_STATUS Address Block TLVs">

		<section title="New Registry">

			<t>
				IANA has created a new sub-registry called
"LINK_STATUS TLV Values" within the "Mobile Ad hoc
NETwork (MANET) Parameters" registry.
			</t>
			<t>
			   IANA has populated this registry as specified in <xref target="LINK_STATUS_TLV_Values"/>.
			</t>
<?rfc compact="no"?>			
			<texttable title="LINK_STATUS TLV Values" anchor="LINK_STATUS_TLV_Values">
				<ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Name</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>

				<c>0</c>
				<c>LOST</c>
				<c>The link on this interface from the router
with that network address has been lost</c> 
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>1</c>
				<c>SYMMETRIC</c>
				<c>The link on this interface from the router
with that network address has the status of symmetric</c> 
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>2</c>
				<c>HEARD</c>
				<c>The link on this interface from the router
with that network address has the status of heard</c> 
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>3-223</c>
				<c></c>
				<c>Unassigned</c>
				<c></c>

				<c>224-254</c>
				<c></c>
				<c>Reserved for Experimental Use</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>255</c>
				<c>UNSPECIFIED</c>
				<c>No information about this network address is provided</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>
			</texttable>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
			<t>
			   New assignments are to be made by Expert Review <xref target="RFC5226"/>.
			</t>
			<t>
				The Designated Experts are required to use the
guidelines specified in <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/>.
			</t>
					<t>
		</t>

		</section>
		<section title="Modification to Existing Registry">
			<t>
IANA maintains a sub-registry called "LINK_STATUS Address
Block TLV Type Extensions" within the "Mobile Ad hoc
NETwork (MANET) Parameters" registry.  This sub-registry already had an entry for value
0.  IANA has replaced the entry in the Description column for this value with
the text "This value is to be interpreted according to the registry LINK_STATUS
TLV Values".  The resulting table is as specified in <xref target="LINK_STATUS_Address_Block_TLV_Type_Extensions_Modifications"/>.
			</t>

<?rfc compact="no"?>
			<texttable title="LINK_STATUS Address Block TLV Type Extensions Modifications" anchor="LINK_STATUS_Address_Block_TLV_Type_Extensions_Modifications">
				<ttcol align='left'>Type Extension</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>
				<c>0</c>
				<c>
					This value is to be interpreted according to the registry LINK_STATUS TLV Values
				</c>
				<c>
					RFC&nbsp;6130, RFC&nbsp;7188 
				</c>
				
				<c>
					1-255
				</c>
				<c>
					Unassigned
				</c>
				<c>
				</c>
		    </texttable>			
<?rfc compact="yes"?>

		</section>
		
	</section>
	
	<section title="OTHER_NEIGHB Address Block TLVs">
		<section title="Create New Registry">
			<t>
				IANA has created a new sub-registry called
"OTHER_NEIGHB TLV Values" within the "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET)
Parameters" registry.
			</t>
			<t>
				IANA has populated this registry as specified in <xref target="OTHER_NEIGHB_Address_Block_TLV_Values"/>.
			</t>
<?rfc compact="no"?>
			<texttable anchor="OTHER_NEIGHB_Address_Block_TLV_Values" title="OTHER_NEIGHB Address Block TLV Values">
				<ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Name</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>

				<c>0</c>
				<c>LOST</c>
				<c>The neighbor relationship with the router with that network address has been lost</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>
			
				<c>1</c>
				<c>SYMMETRIC</c>
				<c>The neighbor relationship with the router with that network address is symmetric</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>2-223</c>
				<c></c>
				<c>Unassigned</c>
				<c></c>

				<c>224-254</c>
				<c></c>
				<c>Reserved for Experimental Use</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>255</c>
				<c>UNSPECIFIED</c>
				<c>No information about this network address is provided</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>
			</texttable>			
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
			<t>
				New assignments are to be made by Expert Review <xref target="RFC5226"/>.
			</t>
			<t>
				The Designated Experts are required to use the
guidelines specified in <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/>.
			</t>
					<t>
		</t>

		</section>
		<section title="Modification to Existing Registry">
			<t>
IANA maintains a sub-registry called "OTHER_NEIGHB Address
Block TLV Type Extensions" within the "Mobile Ad hoc
NETwork (MANET) Parameters" registry.  This sub-registry already had an entry for value
0.  IANA has replaced the entry in the Description column for this value with
the text "This value is to be interpreted according to the registry OTHER_NEIGHB
TLV Values".  The resulting table is as specified in <xref
target="OTHER_NEIGHB_Address_Block_TLV_Type_Extensions_Modifications"/>. 
			</t>
<?rfc compact="no"?>
			<texttable title="OTHER_NEIGHB Address Block TLV Type Extensions Modifications" anchor="OTHER_NEIGHB_Address_Block_TLV_Type_Extensions_Modifications">
				<ttcol align='left'>Type Extension</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>
				<c>0</c>
				<c>
					This value is to be interpreted according to the registry OTHER_NEIGHB TLV Values
				</c>
				<c>
					RFC&nbsp;6130, RFC&nbsp;7188 
				</c>
				
				<c>
					1-255
				</c>
				<c>
					Unassigned
				</c>
				<c>
				</c>
		    </texttable>					
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
		</section>
	</section>
	
	<section title="MPR Address Block TLVs">
		<section title="New Registry">
			<t>
				IANA has created a new sub-registry called "MPR
TLV Bit Values" within the "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters"
registry. 
			</t>
			<t>
				IANA has populated this registry as specified in <xref target="MPR_Address_Block_TLV_Bit_Values"/>.
			</t>
<?rfc compact="no"?>
			<texttable anchor="MPR_Address_Block_TLV_Bit_Values" title="MPR Address Block TLV Bit Values">
				<ttcol align='left'>Bit</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Name</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>

				<c>7</c>
				<c>0x01</c>
				<c>Flooding</c>
				<c>The neighbor with that network address has been selected as flooding MPR</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>6</c>
				<c>0x02</c>
				<c>Routing</c>
				<c>The neighbor with that network address has been selected as routing MPR</c>
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>0-5</c>
				<c></c>
				<c></c>
				<c>Unassigned</c>
				<c></c>
			</texttable>			
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
			<t>
				New assignments are to be made by Expert Review <xref target="RFC5226"/>.
			</t>
			
			<t>
			   The Designated Experts are required to use the
guidelines specified in <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/>.
Additionally, the Designated Experts are required to ensure that the following
sense is preserved: 
			   <list style="symbols">
			   		<t>
			   			For each bit in the field, a
set bit (1) means that the address has the designated property, while an unset
bit (0) means that no information about the designated property is provided. In
particular, an unset bit must not be used to convey any specific information
about the designated property.
			   		</t>
			   	</list>
			</t>
		</section>
		<section title="Modification to Existing Registry">
			<t>
IANA maintains a sub-registry called "MPR Address Block TLV
Type Extensions" within the "Mobile Ad hoc
NETwork (MANET) Parameters" registry.  This sub-registry already had an entry
for value 0. IANA has replaced the entry in the Description column for this
value with the text "This value is to be interpreted according to the registry
MPR TLV Bit Values".  The resulting table is as specified in 
<xref target="MPR_Address_Block_TLV_Type_Extensions_Modifications"/>. 
			</t>
<?rfc compact="no"?>			
			<texttable title="MPR Address Block TLV Type Extensions Modifications" anchor="MPR_Address_Block_TLV_Type_Extensions_Modifications">
				<ttcol align='left'>Type Extension</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>
				<c>0</c>
				<c>
					This value is to be interpreted according to the registry MPR TLV Bit Values
				</c>
				<c>
					RFC&nbsp;7181, RFC&nbsp;7188
				</c>
				
				<c>
					1-255
				</c>
				<c>
					Unassigned
				</c>
				<c>
				</c>
		    </texttable>					
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
		</section>
	</section>

	<section title="NBR_ADDR_TYPE Address Block TLVs">
		<section title="New Registry">
			<t>
IANA has created a new sub-registry called "NBR_ADDR_TYPE Address Block TLV Bit
Values" within the "Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) Parameters" registry.
			</t>
			<t>
IANA has populated this registry as specified in 
<xref target="NBR_ADDR_TYPE_Address_Block_TLV_Bit_Values"/>.
			</t>
<?rfc compact="no"?>
			<texttable anchor="NBR_ADDR_TYPE_Address_Block_TLV_Bit_Values" title="NBR_ADDR_TYPE Address Block TLV Bit Values">
				<ttcol align='left'>Bit</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Name</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>

				<c>7</c>
				<c>0x01</c>
				<c>ORIGINATOR</c>
				<c>The network address is an originator address
reachable via the originating router</c> 
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>6</c>
				<c>0x02</c>
				<c>ROUTABLE</c>
				<c>The network address is a routable address
reachable via the originating router</c> 
				<c>RFC 7188</c>

				<c>0-5</c>
				<c></c>
				<c></c>
				<c>Unassigned</c>
				<c></c>
			</texttable>					
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
			<t>
				New assignments are to be made by Expert Review <xref target="RFC5226"/>.
			</t>
			<t>
				The Designated Experts are required to use the guidelines specified in <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/>.  Additionally, the Designated Experts are required to ensure that the following sense is preserved:
				<list style="symbols">
					<t>
						For each bit in the field, a set bit (1) means that the address has the designated property, while an unset bit (0) means that no information about the designated property is provided.
						
						In particular, an unset bit must not be used to convey any specific information about the designated property.  
					</t>
				</list>
			</t>

		</section>
		<section title="Modification to Existing Registry">
			<t>
IANA maintains a sub-registry called "NBR_ADDR_TYPE Address
Block TLV Type Extensions" within the "Mobile Ad hoc
NETwork (MANET) Parameters" registry.  This sub-registry already had an entry for value
0.  IANA has replaced the entry in the Description column for this value with
the text "This value is to be interpreted according to the registry
NBR_ADDR_TYPE TLV Bit Values".  The resulting table is as specified in <xref
target="NBR_ADDR_TYPE_Address_Block_TLV_Type_Extensions_Modifications"/>. 
			</t>
<?rfc compact="no"?>	
			<texttable title="NBR_ADDR_TYPE Address Block TLV Type Extensions Modifications" anchor="NBR_ADDR_TYPE_Address_Block_TLV_Type_Extensions_Modifications">
				<ttcol align='left'>Type Extension</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Description</ttcol>
				<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>
				<c>0</c>
				<c>
					This value is to be interpreted
according to the registry NBR_ADDR_TYPE Address Block TLV Bit Values 
				</c>
				<c>
					RFC&nbsp;7181, RFC&nbsp;7188
				</c>
				
				<c>
					1-255
				</c>
				<c>
					Unassigned
				</c>
				<c>
				</c>
		    </texttable>					
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
		</section>
	</section>
</section><section title="Security Considerations" anchor="Security">

  <t>
  	The updates made to <xref target="RFC6130"/> and <xref target="RFC7181"/> have the following implications on the security considerations:
  	
  	<list style="symbols">
  		<t>
	  		Created IANA registries for retaining TLV values for TLVs, already defined in the already published specifications of the two protocols, and with initial registrations for the TLV values defined by these specifications. This does not give rise to any additional security considerations.
	  </t>
	  <t>
  			Enabled protocol extensions for registering TLV values in the created IANA registries. Such extensions MUST specify appropriate security considerations.
	  </t>
  	  <t>
  			Created, in some registries, a registration for "UNSPECIFIED" values for more efficient use of multivalue Address Block TLVs. The interpretation of an address being associated with a TLV of a given type and with the value "UNSPECIFIED" is identical to that address not being associated with a TLV of that type. Thus, this update does not give rise to any additional security considerations.
	  </t>
  	  <t>
  	  		Reduced the latitude of implementations of the two protocols to reject a message as "badly formed" due to the value field of a TLV being unexpected. These protocols are specified in terms such as "if an address is associated with a value of LOST by a LINK_STATUS TLV". Association with an unknown value (or a value newly defined to mean no link status information) has no effect on such a specification. Thus, this update does not give rise to any additional security considerations.
  	  </t>
  	  <t>
			Did not introduce any opportunities for attacks on the protocols through signal modification that are not already present in the two protocols.
		</t>
	</list>
   </t>
</section>
<section title="Acknowledgments">
	<t>
		The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the following people for intense technical discussions, early reviews, and comments on the specification (listed alphabetically): Ulrich Herberg (Fujitsu Laboratories of America) and Henning Rogge (Frauenhofer FKIE). 
</t>
<t>
	The authors would also like to express their gratitude to Adrian Farrel
for his assistance and contributions to the successful and timely completion of this specification.
	</t>
</section>
</middle>

<back>
<references title="Normative References">

  <reference anchor="RFC2119">
	<front>
	  <title abbrev="RFC Key Words">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
	  <author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="Scott Bradner">
	    <organization>Harvard University</organization>
	  </author>
	  <date year="1997" month="March"/>
	</front>
	<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
	<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
  </reference>

  <reference anchor="RFC5444">
	<front>
	  <title abbrev="RFC5444">Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format</title>
	  <author initials="T.H." surname="Clausen" fullname="Thomas Heide Clausen">
	    <organization abbrev="X">Ecole Polytechnique, France</organization>
	  </author>
	  <author initials="C.M." surname="Dearlove" fullname="Christopher Dearlove">
	    <organization abbrev="BAE">BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre, UK</organization>
	  </author>
	  <author initials="J.W." surname="Dean" fullname="Justin W. Dean">
		<organization abbrev="NRL">Naval Research Laboratory, USA</organization>
	  </author>
	  <author initials="C." surname="Adjih" fullname="Cedric Adjih">
		<organization>INRIA Rocquencourt</organization>
	  </author>
	  <date month="February" year="2009"/>
	</front>
	<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5444"/>
  </reference>

  <reference anchor="RFC6130">
	<front>
	  <title>Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)</title>
	  <author initials="T.H." surname="Clausen" fullname="Thomas Heide Clausen">
		<organization abbrev="X">Ecole Polytechnique, France</organization>
	  </author>
	  <author initials="J.W." surname="Dean" fullname="Justin W. Dean">
	    <organization abbrev="NRL">Naval Research Laboratory, USA</organization>
	  </author>
	  <author initials="C.M." surname="Dearlove" fullname="Christopher Dearlove">
		<organization>BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre, UK</organization>
	  </author>
	  <date month="April" year="2011"/>
	</front>
	<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6130" />
  </reference>

<!-- draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2 = RFC 7181 -->
  <reference anchor="RFC7181">
	<front>
	  <title>The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2</title>
	  <author initials="T." surname="Clausen"/>
	  <author initials="C." surname="Dearlove"/>
	  <author initials="P." surname="Jacquet"/>
	  <author initials="U." surname="Herberg"/>
	  <date month="April" year="2014" />
	</front>
	<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7181"/>
  </reference>

</references>

<references title="Informative References">

  <reference anchor="RFC2501">
    <front>
      <title>Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations</title>
      <author initials="J." surname="Macker" fullname="Joseph Macker">
        <organization abbrev="NRL">Naval Research Laboratory</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="S." surname="Corson" fullname="Scott Corson">
        <organization abbrev="University of Maryland">University of Maryland</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="January" year="1999"/>
    </front>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2501"/>
  </reference>

	<reference anchor='RFC5226'>
		<front>
			<title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
			<author initials='T.' surname='Narten' fullname='T. Narten'>
				<organization />
			</author>
			<author initials='H.' surname='Alvestrand' fullname='H. Alvestrand'>
				<organization />
			</author>
			<date year='2008' month='May' />
		</front>

		<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='26' />
		<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='5226' />
		<format type='TXT' octets='66160' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5226.txt' />
	</reference>

</references>
</back>

</rfc>
