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
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
移动自组网（MANET）通用分组/消息格式中的TLV命名
Abstract
摘要
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.
本文档重新组织RFC 5444定义的“移动自组织网络（MANET）参数”注册表中已分配的TLV（类型长度值）类型和类型扩展的命名，以适当使用名称。它对任何协议的实现都没有影响。
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.
本文件还更新了RFC 5444中的专家评审指南，以便为未来TLV类型和类型扩展分配的一致命名制定政策。它没有对RFC 5444进行其他更改。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
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.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
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.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7631.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2015 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
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
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
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".
本文件对[RFC5444]定义并由IANA在“移动自组织网络（MANET）参数”注册表的以下子区域记录的TLV（类型-长度-值结构）的命名进行了重新组织和合理化：“数据包TLV类型”、“消息TLV类型”和“地址块TLV类型”。
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.
本文档重新组织已分配的数据包、消息和地址块TLV类型及其相应类型扩展的命名。它还更新了相应的IANA注册。
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.
TLV有一个类型（一个八位组）和一个类型扩展（一个八位组），它们共同构成一个完整类型（两个八位组）。TLV为零时可能会忽略类型扩展。然而，这仅适用于其代表性；它的类型扩展仍然为零。TLV类型为该类型定义类型扩展的IANA注册表。
There have been two forms of TLV allocation.
TLV分配有两种形式。
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.
第一种但不太常见的分配形式是，TLV类型的分配已定义（但不一定分配）该TLV类型的所有类型扩展。例如，这适用于[RFC7181]中指定的地址块TLV LINK_度量。链路度量类型扩展都可用于分配不同定义的链路度量。在这种情况下，将name LINK_度量应用于该类型以及与该类型相对应的所有完整类型是合适的，正如前面所做的那样。然后，类型扩展可以单独命名，也可以简单地通过它们的编号来引用。
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.
第二种更常见的分配形式是，TLV类型的分配只为该TLV类型定义了类型扩展0，可能还定义了类型扩展1。例如[RFC6130]中定义的地址块TLV链路_状态，其中仅分配类型扩展0。假设剩余的255个类型扩展将分配给链接状态的表单是不合理的。（在[RFC7188]中引入的链接状态TLV值注册表已经满足了其他形式的链接状态。）因此，名称link_status应附加到该类型的特定类型扩展，即，当与任何其他类型扩展一起使用时，应附加到完整类型，而不是TLV类型。然而，这并不是该TLV类型初始注册的一部分。实际上，对于LINK_STATUS TLV类型，类型扩展1-255要么不可分配（如果严格应用它们必须与LINK_状态相关的解释），要么根据其预期功能进行反直觉命名。
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.
本文件的目的是改变第二种形式的名称在IANA登记册中的应用和记录方式，并为未来TLV类型分配提供指南和说明。这是为了方便使用0以外的类型扩展添加新的TLV，但不会附加不合适的名称。因此，例如，LINK_STATUS将成为完整类型的名称（由TLV类型3和TLV类型扩展0组成），并且不再是TLV类型3的名称。这就留下了如何命名类型的问题。由于不清楚可能为同一类型的其他类型扩展定义哪些其他TLV，因此该类型目前未命名，仅由数字指定。
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.
本文件还更新了[RFC5444]中的专家评审指南，以便为未来TLV类型和类型扩展分配的一致命名制定政策。
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.
为清楚起见，[RFC5497]、[RFC6130]、[RFC6621]、[RFC7181]和[RFC7182]中当前分配的所有TLV都列在本文件的IANA注意事项部分中，每个TLV都指定了更新或在适当时指示没有更改（例如链接度量TLV和[RFC6621]中定义的两个TLV）。唯一的变化是命名。
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.
请注意，本文档中的任何内容都不会更改任何协议的操作。这种命名实际上已经在[RFC6130]和[RFC7181]中使用，目前它们是分配的TLV的主要用户。例如，前者表示链路_状态的所有用法都引用类型扩展为0的TLV。
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].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“不建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中的说明进行解释。
All references to elements such as "packet", "message", and "TLV" in this document refer to those defined in [RFC5444].
本文件中对“数据包”、“消息”和“TLV”等元素的所有引用均指[RFC5444]中定义的元素。
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.
本文件更新了[RFC5444]中“数据包TLV类型”、“消息TLV类型”和“地址块TLV类型”注册表中分配的专家评审评估指南，并更新了已进行的分配，以符合这些指南。
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]:
对于“数据包TLV类型”、“消息TLV类型”和“地址块TLV类型”注册表中的注册，除[RFC5444]第6.1节中给出的指南外，以下指南适用：
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.
o 如果请求的TLV类型立即定义（但不一定分配）该类型版本的所有对应类型扩展，则应为TLV类型分配一个通用名称。
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].
本规范未对这种情况进行修改。这目前包括名为ICV、时间戳和链路度量的TLV类型；它还包括[RFC6621]中定义的HELLO消息类型特定的TLV。
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:
o 否则，如果请求的TLV类型没有立即为该类型的版本定义所有相应的类型扩展，则不应为该TLV类型分配公共名称。相反，建议：
* The "description" for the allocated TLV type be "Defined by Type Extension".
* 分配的TLV类型的“说明”应为“由类型扩展定义”。
* 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.
* 对于数据包TLV类型，为TLV类型创建的类型扩展注册表将命名为“type XX Packet TLV type Extensions”，其中XX将替换为TLV类型的数值。
* 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.
* 对于消息TLV类型，为TLV类型创建的类型扩展注册表将命名为“type XX Message TLV type Extensions”，其中XX将替换为TLV类型的数值。
* 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.
* 对于地址块TLV类型，为TLV类型创建的类型扩展注册表将命名为“XX类型地址块TLV类型扩展”，XX将替换为TLV类型的数值。
* 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.)
* 当需要新的类型扩展时，除非有相反的原因，否则将分配下一个连续的类型扩展并为其指定名称。（与此相反的原因可能包括保持相应的分组、消息和地址块tlv之间的对应关系，以及保留类型扩展零（如果尚未分配）
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.
以下更改（包括纠正一些现有的小错误）适用于IANA注册表“移动自组网（MANET）参数”。为清楚起见，未更改的注册表（包括定义TLV类型的所有类型扩展的注册表）列为未更改。
The IANA registry "Packet TLV Types" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“数据包TLV类型”不变。
The IANA registry "ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“ICV数据包TLV类型扩展”不变。
The IANA registry "TIMESTAMP Packet TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“时间戳数据包TLV类型扩展”不变。
The IANA registry "Message TLV Types" is changed to match Table 1.
IANA注册表“消息TLV类型”已更改为与表1匹配。
+---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
| 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] |
+---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
+---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
| 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
表1：消息TLV类型
The IANA registry "INTERVAL_TIME Message Type Extensions" has been renamed "Type 0 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to match Table 2.
IANA注册表“间隔时间消息类型扩展”已重命名为“类型0消息TLV类型扩展”，并更改为与表2匹配。
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 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 | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 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
表2:0类型消息TLV类型扩展
The IANA registry "VALIDITY_TIME Message Type Extensions" has been renamed "Type 1 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to match Table 3.
IANA注册表“有效性\时间消息类型扩展”已重命名为“类型1消息TLV类型扩展”，并更改为与表3匹配。
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 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 | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 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
表3：类型1消息TLV类型扩展
The IANA registry "ICV Message TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“ICV消息TLV类型扩展”不变。
The IANA registry "TIMESTAMP Message TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“时间戳消息TLV类型扩展”不变。
The IANA registry "MPR_WILLING Message Type Extensions" has been renamed "Type 7 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to match Table 4.
IANA注册表“MPR_消息类型扩展”已重命名为“类型7消息TLV类型扩展”，并更改为与表4匹配。
+-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| 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 | |
+-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
+-----------+-------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| 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
表4:7类消息TLV类型扩展
The IANA registry "CONT_SEQ_NUM Message Type Extensions" has been renamed "Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions" and changed to match Table 5.
IANA注册表“CONT_SEQ_NUM Message Type Extensions”已重命名为“Type 8 Message TLV Type Extensions”，并更改为与表5匹配。
+-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 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 | |
+-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+
+-----------+--------------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 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
表5:8类消息TLV类型扩展
The IANA registry "HELLO Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“HELLO消息类型特定的消息TLV类型”保持不变。
The IANA registry "SMF_TYPE Message TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“SMF_类型消息TLV类型扩展”不变。
The IANA registry "TC Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“TC消息类型特定消息TLV类型”不变。
The IANA registry "Address Block TLV Types" has been changed to match Table 6.
IANA注册表“地址块TLV类型”已更改为与表6匹配。
+---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
| 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] |
+---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
+---------+-------------------------------+-----------+
| 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
表6：地址块TLV类型
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.
IANA注册表“间隔时间地址块TLV类型扩展”已重命名为“类型0地址块TLV类型扩展”，并更改为与表7匹配。
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 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 | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 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
表7:0型地址块TLV类型扩展
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.
IANA注册表“有效性\时间地址块TLV类型扩展”已重命名为“类型1地址块TLV类型扩展”，并更改为与表8匹配。
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 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 | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
+-----------+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 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
表8:1型地址块TLV型扩展
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.
IANA注册表“LOCAL_IF Address Block TLV Type Extensions”已重命名为“Type 2 Address Block TLV Type Extensions”，并更改为与表9匹配。
+-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| 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 | |
+-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+
+-----------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| 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
表9：类型2地址块TLV类型扩展
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.
IANA注册表“链路状态地址块TLV类型扩展”已重命名为“类型3地址块TLV类型扩展”，并更改为与表10匹配。
+-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| 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 | |
+-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+
+-----------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| 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
表10:3型地址块TLV型扩展
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.
IANA注册表“其他相邻地址块TLV类型扩展”已重命名为“类型4地址块TLV类型扩展”，并更改为与表11匹配。
+-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| 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 | |
+-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+
+-----------+--------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| 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
表11:4类地址块TLV类型扩展
The IANA registry "ICV Address TLV Type Extensions" has been renamed "ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions" but is otherwise unchanged.
IANA注册表“ICV地址TLV类型扩展”已重命名为“ICV地址块TLV类型扩展”，但在其他方面没有更改。
The IANA registry "TIMESTAMP Address TLV Type Extensions" has been renamed "TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV Type Extensions" but is otherwise unchanged.
IANA注册表“时间戳地址TLV类型扩展”已重命名为“时间戳地址块TLV类型扩展”，但在其他方面没有更改。
The IANA registry "LINK_METRIC Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“链接\度量地址块TLV类型扩展”不变。
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.
IANA注册表“MPR地址块TLV类型扩展”已重命名为“类型8地址块TLV类型扩展”，并更改为与表12匹配。
+-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+
| 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) |
+-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+
+-----------+------+---------------------------+--------------------+
| 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
表12:8型地址块TLV型扩展
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.
IANA注册表“NBR_ADDR_类型地址块TLV类型扩展”已重命名为“类型9地址块TLV类型扩展”，并更改为与表13匹配。
+-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+
| 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) |
+-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+
+-----------+---------------+------------------+--------------------+
| 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
表13:9型地址块TLV型扩展
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.
IANA注册表“网关地址块TLV类型扩展”已重命名为“类型10地址块TLV类型扩展”，并更改为与表14匹配。
+-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+
| 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) |
+-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+
+-----------+---------+------------------------+--------------------+
| 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
表14:10型地址块TLV型扩展
The IANA registry "HELLO Message-Type-specific Address Block TLV Types" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“HELLO消息类型特定地址块TLV类型”不变。
The IANA registry "SMF_NBR_TYPE Address Block TLV Type Extensions" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“SMF_NBR_类型地址块TLV类型扩展”不变。
The IANA registry "TC Message-Type-specific Address Block TLV Types" is unchanged.
IANA注册表“TC消息类型特定地址块TLV类型”不变。
Note: This document adds reservations for Experimental Use [RFC5226], omitted in [RFC7181], to the last three tables.
注：本文件在最后三个表中增加了实验使用保留[RFC5226]，在[RFC7181]中省略。
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.
由于本文件仅涉及实体的命名方式，这些名称仅在本文件和IANA注册中心等文件中使用，因此本文件不考虑安全问题。
[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>.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，DOI 10.17487/RFC2119，1997年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[RFC5444]Clausen，T.，Dearlove，C.，Dean，J.，和C.Adjih，“通用移动自组网（MANET）数据包/消息格式”，RFC 5444，DOI 10.17487/RFC54442009年2月<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>.
[RFC5497]Clausen，T.和C.Dearlove，“在移动自组网（MANET）中表示多值时间”，RFC 5497，DOI 10.17487/RFC5497，2009年3月<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>.
[RFC6130]Clausen，T.，Dearlove，C.，和J.Dean，“移动自组织网络（MANET）邻域发现协议（NHDP）”，RFC 6130，DOI 10.17487/RFC6130，2011年4月<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>.
[RFC6621]Macker，J.，Ed.，“简化多播转发”，RFC 6621，DOI 10.17487/RFC6621，2012年5月<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>.
[RFC7181]Clausen，T.，Dearlove，C.，Jacquet，P.，和U.Herberg，“优化链路状态路由协议版本2”，RFC 7181，DOI 10.17487/RFC7181，2014年4月<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>.
[RFC7182]Herberg，U.，Clausen，T.，和C.Dearlove，“移动自组网（MANET）的完整性检查值和时间戳TLV定义”，RFC 7182，DOI 10.17487/RFC7182，2014年4月<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>.
[RFC7188]Dearlove，C.和T.Clausen，“优化链路状态路由协议版本2（OLSRv2）和MANET邻居发现协议（NHDP）扩展TLV”，RFC 7188，DOI 10.17487/RFC7188，2014年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7188>.
[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>.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，DOI 10.17487/RFC5226，2008年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Acknowledgments
致谢
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.
作者要感谢Adrian Farrel指出需要对[RFC5444]和Tom Taylor定义的TLV命名进行重新组织和合理化，并感谢RFC编辑指出了一些遗漏和错误。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Christopher Dearlove BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road Great Baddow, Chelmsford United Kingdom
克里斯托弗·迪尔洛夫英国切姆斯福德大巴德西汉宁菲尔德路BAE系统先进技术中心
Phone: +44 1245 242194
Email: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com
URI: http://www.baesystems.com/
Phone: +44 1245 242194
Email: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com
URI: http://www.baesystems.com/
Thomas Heide Clausen LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
托马斯·海德·克劳森·利克斯，理工学院
Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
Email: T.Clausen@computer.org
URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/
Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
Email: T.Clausen@computer.org
URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/