Subject: Re: [manet] MANET Terminology Update

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:24:16 +0200

Dear All

I completed the first version of draft on terminology and submited the
draft yesterday (with getting some techniq problem), but needed to
post to know the community feedback and advise. There are other terms
that was not yet included which will need some advise from you.
Thanking you,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Abbreviations Used in The submitted Document

   AH   Authentication Header
   DAD  Duplicate Address Detection
   DPD  Duplicate Packet Detection
   DoS  Denial of Service
   ESP  Encapsulating Security Payload
   IP   IPv4 or IPv6
   ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol
   IIB  Interface Information Base
   ETX  Estimated Expected number of Transmission
   FIB  Forwarding Information Base
   LQI  Link Quality Indicator
   L2   Data Link Layer (i.e. 2nd layer in ISO model)
   L3   Internet Layer (i.e. 3rd layer in ISO model)
   LLN  Low power and Lossy Network
   MAC  Mediam Access Control
   MIB  Management Information Base
   MTU  Maximum Transmission Unit
   NBMA Non-Broadcast Multi-Access link
   NHDP Neighborhood Discovery Protocol
   ND   IP Neighbor Discovery
   OSPF Open Shortest Path First
   RIB  Routing Information Base
   SMF  Simplified Multicast Forwarding
   TCP  Transmission Control Protocol
   UDP  User Datagram Protocol

2.3 Definitions for MANET Terms

2.3.1 Terms Definition of MANET Communication:

Communications’ Technology or Facility:
   The means employed by two or more devices/subsystems to transfer
   and/or receive information between them in one way or two way
   communication.  MANET communications often uses the wireless
   transmission medium(s) and MAY use some wired mediums (e.g. free
   space, air, water, antenna, coaxial cables, etc.)

Communication Medium:
   The transceiver system (e.g. such as L2 systems, IEEE802.11 systems,
   satellite system, etc.) that the routing device uses to communicates
   through the transmission medium(s), by providing connectionless and/or
   connection services that MAY be established. The system medium
   includes MAC layer and MAY include the physical Layer.

Communication Channel:
A subdivision of the physical communication medium (i.e. radio carrier
signal bandwidth, or the system bandwidth) allowing possibly shared
independent uses of the medium. Channels may be made available by
subdividing the medium into; distinct time slots, distinct spectral
bands, or coding sequence, etc.

MANET Protocol:
The communication system/subsystem that operates and maintains the
ad hoc communication technology or facility within MANET. MANET routing
Protocols often apply distributed algorithms/techniques to disseminate
or forward routing messages within a MANET routing domain.

Topology:
An abstract representation of a network (physical or logical), as a
graph (G) whose topology is defined by a set of routers/bridges (V) that
communicate through set of links (E), where the G = (V, E).

Physical-level Topology:
A topology of the communication medium networks consists of routing
devices and physical links. This topology information is updated by
devices’ technology in the L2 information Base.

Network-level Topology:
A topology of the communication system networks consists of routers and
links. This topology information is updated by routers in its RIB.

Multihop MANET:
A MANET that its node(s) MAY need(s) more than one IP hop to reach the
destination.

Reactive Routing:
An on-demand based routing protocol that operates route discover and
maintainance the route(s), to reach the demanded destination(s).

Proactive Routing:
A topology RIB based routing protocol that operates routes and maintains
the network topology, to reach its known destination(s). Each router
maintains routes to all reachable destinations at all times, whether or
not there is currently any demand to deliver packets to those
destinations.

Upper Layer:
a protocol layer above IP layer (e.g. as TCP, UDP, OSPF).

MANET Domain: TBD

MANET Signaling:
Sending and exchanging some MANET messages/information.

2.3.2 Terms Definition of MANET Elements

Node:
A device/subsystem that MUST implement IP and SHOULD participate in
MANET signaling. It either runs a MANET routing protocol or participate
in MANET signaling.

Router:
A MANET node that MUST implement a MANET routing protocol and forwards
IP packets not explicitly addressed to itself.

Host:
A node that is not a router. All destinations in MANET that receive
delivered data are hosts.

Link:
A link between two node interfaces. This link may be Logical
(i.e. virtual) link or physical link. Logical links are between two
logical interfaces and physical links are between two physical
interfaces. Links are either unidirectional or bidirectional
(links may be on-link and off-link: see RFC4861).

Physical Link:
a communication facility or medium over which the nodes can
communicate at the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below
IP. Physical interfaces are the nodes’ attachment to physical links.
Physical Link types are point-to-point, NBMA, multicast capable,
and shared-media, etc (see link types in ND [RFC4861]).

Logical (virtual) Link:
a communication facility (at L3, or upper-layer) over which nodes can
communicate. This logical link is between two MANET interfaces exists
if either can be heard by the other.

Link MTU:
the maximum transmission unit (i.e. maximum unit size in octets), that
can be conveyed in one transmission unit over the link.

Node Interface:
A node's point of attachment to a link. Each node MUST have at least one
interface that SHOULD be assigned an IP address. If there is/are more
than one interface(s) per node then the additional interface(s) MAY be
assigned an IP address. If an interface is not assigned to an IP address
it MUST be identified by the MANET routing protocol. An interface MAY be
assigned one or more addresses.

MANET Interface:
A node interface that participate in; exchange MANET information used in
MANET routing or exchange information in MANET neighbor node discovery
(e.g as the term used in RFC6130). A MANET interface MUST be assigned to
least one  address to communicate. A router interface MUST be
assigned a routable address which is the main address for the interface.

2.3.3 Terms Definition of MANET Identifications:

An interface MAY be assigned one or more addresses. If the interface is
a logical interface it MAY be assigned to only logical addresses, but if
it is a physical interface MAY be assigned with physical address
(e.g. MAC address) and/or logical address(es) (e.g. IP addresses,
MANET addresses).

MANET Address
A MANET-subnet, node, or interface address. Node and interface addresses
are either IP addresses or RFC5444 addresses. All subnet addresses are
unicast IP addresses.

Address Block and TLV: as specified in RFC5444

Routable address:
A subnet address which can be a destination address. A router MUST be
able to distinguish a routable address from a non-routable address.
Broadcast, and multicast addresses, limited in scope to less than the
entire MANET, MUST NOT be considered as routable addresses. Anycast
addresses MAY be considered as routable addresses.

Main address
A routable address (MANET address) that is assigned to one router's
MANET interface.

Originator address:
A node address of the node that originated a MANET message (this message
MUST include the originator address). It MAY be a routable or an
unroutable address.

subnet prefix
A bit string that consists of some number of initial bits of an IP
address.

Interface identifier
the remaining low-order bits in the node's IP address after the subnet
prefix. A number used to identify a node's interface on a link.

2.3.4 Terms Definition of MANET exchange information formats:

Packet:
A MANET packet of a header plus payload. These packets are either
IP packets or RFC5444 packets. RFC5444 packet MUST be encapsulated
in IP packet. Packets are generated by nodes to be sent to
destination(s) through MANET or through the Internet. RFC5444 packets
information MAY not be used only by MANET routers.

Message:
A MANET data message or routing control message. Routing control
messages are either MANET routing protocol messages or/and RFC5444
messages.

Type Length Value coding (TLV):
A generic way to represent MANET information (as in [RFC5444] and
[RFC5497]).

Frame:
A L2 protocol TLV with a header and payload. In some technologies the L2
operates a MANET routing protocol as a local area networking system.
Frames MAY encapsulate MANET packets to be tunneled through a
telecommunication network.

Route Request Message (RREQ)
A message is used to discover a valid route to a particular
destination address, called the RREQ Target Node. When a router
processes a RREQ it learns routing information on how to Originator
Node.

Route Reply Message (RREP)
A message is used to disseminate routing information about
the RREP Target Node to the RREQ Originator Node and the intermediate
routers.

Route Error Message (RERR)
A message is used to disseminate the information that a route is
not available for one or more particular addresses. A RERR message is
used to indicate that a router does not have a forwarding route
to one or more particular addresses.

2.3.5 Terms Definition Related to MANET Protocol Operation:

Hop-by-hop Routing: (TBD)
A dynamic routing that routes to destination by routing table.

Source Routing: (TBD)
A dynamic routing that its route path is provided in the IP packet.

Route Discovery: TBD

Route Maintenance: TBD

Neighbor discovery: (TBD)
A node discovers neighbors only if the node receives from it's
neighbors.

Multipoint relay (MPR): (TBD)
A router X1 is an MPR for a router Y1, if router Y1 has indicated
its selection of router X1 as an MPR in a recent HELLO message.
Router X1 may be a flooding MPR for Y1 if it is indicated to
participate in the flooding process of messages received from
router Y1, or it may be a routing MPR for Y1, if it is indicated to
declare link-state information for the link from X1 to Y1. It may
also be both at the same time.

MPR selector:
A router, Y, is a flooding/routing MPR selector of router X if
router Y has selected router X as a flooding/routing MPR.

Router Parameters:
boolean or numerical values, specified for each router, and not
specific to an interface. A router MAY change router parameter
values at any time, subject to some MANET constraints.

MANET Routing Metric:
A MANET routing cost that is governed by specific rules and properties
defined by the MANET routing protocol which captures specific link or
node characteristics. Examples of basic metrics are hop-count, ETX, LQI,
etc.

Distance Vector Metric
A metric class related to rules of the MANET interface and MANET path
distance. The metric can be calculated by the distance vector routing
algorithm class used by the MANET routing protocol. A metric of the
distance a message or piece of information has traversed. The minimum
value of distance is the number of IP hops traversed.

Link State Metric
A metric type related to the MANET network-topology status and logical
links' states. This metric is calculated by the link state routing
algorithm class used by the MANET routing protocol. A metric type maybe
EXT, LQL, etc.

Link Metric: TBD

Neighbor Metric: TBD

Path accumulated:
The RREQ message accumulates intermediate routers that are in path to
destination(s).

Protocol Sequence Number:
A Sequence Number related to a MANET protocol that maintained by each
protocol subsystem process. This sequence number is used by other
subsystems to identify the temporal order of protocol information
generated.

Router Sequence Number:
A router sequence number is maintained by each router process. The
sequence number is used by other routers to identify the temporal
order of routing information generated and ensure loop-free routes.

MANET Information Base:
A collection of information (in Table or Cache structure) maintained
by MANET protocols and which is to be made available to MANET routing
protocols. An Information Base may be associated with a MANET router
or with MANET interface (e.g. route request table, IIB, RIB, FIB, MIB).

RIB Entry:
The RIB entry is a conceptual data structure. Implementations may use
any internal representation that conforms to the semantics of a route
as specified in the router specification.

3. IP Considerations and Terminology

   All MANET nodes MUST implement IP and all MANET routers MUST
   run/implement  at least one MANET routing protocol. The
   terminologies described in this document can be used for
   IPv4-MANET and IPv6-MANET. The IPv4 addresses MAY be used in IPv6
   packets but IPv6 addresses MUST not be in IPv4 packets.

   IP address:
   IPv4 addresses or IPv6 addresses.

   IP Packet:
   The packet header plus payload as specified in [RFC791] and [RFC2460]
   for IPv4 and IPv6 respectively. It can encapsulate RFC5444 packets as
   specified by RFC5498.

   Mobile IP considerations:
   Mobile IP terms are provided in [RFC6275], and this technology
   assists nodes while connected through the Internet domain(s). MANET
   is an infrastructure-less network that is able to communicate with
   the Internet (i.e. an IP infrastructure network).

4. Security Consideration and Terminology

   It is RECOMMENDED that MANET routing protocols consider security
   issues because the MANET's transmission medium is wireless which make
   it vulnerable to attacks [ANJUM][RFC4593]. In some situations the
   routing information while traversing the MANET MAY be used by an
   intruder node, to obtain MANET data traffic or/and attack the MANET
   [HERBERG]. Forwarding protocols that use DPD techniques MAY be
   vulnerable to DoS attacks such as [RFC6621]. MANETs MAY be secured
   by using IPsec, AH, DAD, and ESP techniques, and other. However,
   it is RECOMMENDED that MANET detects attackers and possible threats.

   The following are some terminology related to MANET threats and
   security.

Attacker: A node, present in the network and which intentionally seeks
to compromise information based in MANET router(s). The Attacker MAY be
a compromised MANET router if obtained MANET identity or routing
information.

Compromised MANET Router: An attacker router, present in MANET and
which generates syntactically correct routing control messages. Control
messages emitted by compromised router(s) may contain additional
information, or omit information, as compared to a control message
generated by a non-compromised router located in the same MANET
topological position.

Legitimate MANET Router: A MANET router, which is not a Compromised
MANET Router.

Jamming Attack:
The attacker transmits massive amounts of interfering radio traffic,
which will prevent legitimate traffic (e.g., routing and data traffic)
on all or part of the MANET. Indirect jamming attacks MAY occur by
influencing Legitimate MANET Router to transmit unnecessary information.

Eavesdropping:
Obtaining a copy by the attacker of the transmitted MANET routing
information or the transmitted data information from its neighbor's
transmitted radio packet. Attacker’s processes MANY be used by attacker
to mislead routing. Eavesdropping does not pose a direct threat to the
MANET or to its routing.

Identity Spoofing:
Attacker sends routing messages, pretending to have the MANET identity
of another node.

Link Spoofing:
Compromised MANET router sends routing messages to neighbor node(s)
providing incorrect set of link information.

Replay Attack:
A Compromised router in one MANET region records control traffic
information and replays the recorded information in a different MANET
region (this type of attack is also called the Wormhole attack).

Broadcast Storm:
Compromised MANET router may attack the MANET by attempting to change
the MANET flooding algorithm(s) to increase routing overheads or/and to
increase the route discovery delay. Broadcast storm degrades the data
traffic delivery and MANET performance.

Falsification in MANET:
The compromised MANET router sends false routing information into MANET.
False routing information received in MANET, MAY create unrealistic
information bases.

ICMP Attacks:
The generation of ICMPv6 error messages may be used by compromised MANET
router to attempt DoS attacks by sending an error-causing source routing
header in back-to-back datagrams. As the ICMP messages are passed to the
upper-layer processes, it is possible to perform attacks on the upper
layer protocols (e.g., UDP, TCP). Protocols at the upper layers are
RECOMMENDED to perform some form of validation to ICMP messages (using
the information contained in the payload of the ICMP message) before
acting upon them.

Source Routing Attacks: TBD

Acknowledgments:

This work has used/modified terms of the following documents: RFC2462,
RFC2501, RFC3561, RFC3626, RFC3753, RFC4728, RFC4861, RFC5444,
RFC6130,  RFC6621, [AODVv2], [OLSRv2], and [HERBERG],
Gratefully acknowledge to the IETF community and all contributions.

Reference:
   [HERBERG] Herberg, U., Yi, J., Clausen, T.,"Security Threats for
             NHDP", Work in progress, March, 2012.
   [ANJUM]   Anjum, F. and Mouchtaris, P. "Security for Wireless Ad Hoc
             Networks", John Wiley & Sons, March 2007.
             ISBN: 978-0-471-75688-0.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I hope to get some advise from the Internet community to make the
definitions more suitable/accurate, because I MAY misunderstood.
Thanking you,

Best Regards

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
=====================

---

From: Jiazi YI <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:55:25 +0200

Dear Abdussalam, 

I had a quick look of your draft, here are some very general and quick comments:

1. I didn't get the scope of this document. The definitions are from "Communication Medium" to protocol-specific term like "Route Reply Message (RREP)", and even security. I don't think it's necessary to go from the general terms of telecommunication to some specified protocols -- if you define RREP, why not HELLO, TC, and all other message types in the other protocols? 

2. A lot of definitions are quite vague and do not make much sense, for example:

> "Upper layer"
 this can be only used in certain context, but not a an depenent term. 

>maintainance the route(s), to reach the demanded destination(s).

what's an on-demand based routing procotol then? A reactive routing?

>Message:
>A MANET data message or routing control message. 

You are trying to define "message" using "message"? And 

>Routing control messages are either MANET routing protocol messages or/and RFC5444
>messages.

I'm confused with the relation between routing protocol message and RFC 5444 messages when saying this... 
Are you tying to say: a chicken can be either a white chicken or/and a cock?
plus, RFC 5444 defines both packet and message...

3. There are a lot controversial terms (phy link, logic link, subnet prefix...) and terms that rarely used in the protocols ( Protocol Sequence Number/Router Sequence Number, Distance Vector Metric/Link Stat Metric, or I don't really know what they really are).

Personally, I'm against to have this kind of document that "tries to define everything", with the reasons that the others have stated before. 

YI Jiazi

http://www.jiaziyi.com
LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
Route de Saclay 91128 Palaiseau Cedex France

On Jul 3, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:14:53 +0200

Hi Jiazi,

On 7/3/12, Jiazi YI <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 1. I didn't get the scope of this document. The definitions are from
> "Communication Medium" to protocol-specific term like "Route Reply Message
> (RREP)", and even security. I don't think it's necessary to go from the
> general terms of telecommunication to some specified protocols -- if you
> define RREP, why not HELLO, TC, and all other message types in the other
> protocols?

I will add  TC and HELLO, and others if they are a general concept to
be used by MANET. Usually the draft is the start, there will be more
work to be added,

>  this can be only used in certain context, but not a an depenent term.

ok we may remove it,

> what's an on-demand based routing procotol then? A reactive routing?

ok will add this term as well

> You are trying to define "message" using "message"? And

I will amend this

> plus, RFC 5444 defines both packet and message...

Just trying to say the term "MANET message" doesn't always mean
RFC5444 message. If you read RFC5444 (general MANET format) you will
understand that all MANET messages are RFC5444. we still have active
MANET RFCs that don't use RFC5444 (its a standard document).

>
> 3. There are a lot controversial terms (phy link, logic link, subnet
> prefix...) and terms that rarely used in the protocols ( Protocol Sequence
> Number/Router Sequence Number, Distance Vector Metric/Link Stat Metric, or I
> don't really know what they really are).
>
> Personally, I'm against to have this kind of document that "tries to define
> everything", with the reasons that the others have stated before.
>

The document is only a informational document not a standard document,
 The document I am doing may clarify many terms more to the community
(users) than to the designers (experts).

> best
> Jiazi YI

I thank you for your input and comments,

Best Regards,
Abdussalam
============

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:50:23 +0200

I do not see the need for this terminology document in MANET:

	o	The RFCs published by the WG all do a good job of defining their proper 
		terminology and conventions in the sections, aptly named to this 
		effect -- and something which both the WG and the IESG has been very 
		vigilant in ensuring.

	o	Extracting this terminology, to present without the context of the RFC in 
		which they are introduced and used, is both futile and a source 
		of errors and confusion.

	o	The domain evolves, new protocols appear and introduce new concepts, 
		terms. This is captured by carefully defining such in the RFC specifying 
		that protocol. Any terminology document (aside from all its other issues,
		indicated in this list) would likely be obsolete and incomplete before the
		ink with which it was written was dry.

	o	All RFCs in MANET uses no more than a small subset of the total MANET
		(and Internet) terminology. A collective terminology document would,
		therefore, necessarily be adding entropy to any single RFC and to the 
		WG (and to implementers of the WG protocols).

	o	Certainly, a large number of terms in this document are entirely out of scope
		(such as those pertaining to non-MANET developed concepts or protocols, 
		e.g., those developed in other parts of the IETF), are useless for the WG
		(such as, but not exclusively, "communication channel" and "communication 
		medium"), are by nature ambiguous (such as, but not exclusively, "Upper Layer"
		and "Node"), carry a legacy that renders them difficult to use (such as, but 
		not exclusively, "Logical (virtual) Link", "Physical Link", and "Link").

Thomas

On Jul 3, 2012, at 20:14 , Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:06:14 +0200

Dear Thomas,

I thank you for your reply and comments,

Best Regards
Abdussalam
==========

On 7/6/12, Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> Routing control messages are either MANET routing protocol messages
>>>> or/and
>>>> RFC5444
>>>> messages.
>>>
>>> I'm confused with the relation between routing protocol message and RFC
>>> 5444
>>> messages when saying this...

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:58:58 +0200

Hi

Comment inline below:

> 		effect -- and something which both the WG and the IESG has been very

Agree

> 		which they are introduced and used, is both futile and a source

It is not extracting any thing it is locating information in easy
location to be reached efficiently by researchers, or other WG
participants. In another reason, for example the RFC5444 and RFC6130
is providing a MANET standard, while any RFC in this WG is specifying
its own terminology and message format, but the reason was to bring
RFCs to have similar formating functions. The terminology RFCs in many
WGs does the same. RFC2501 is doing a good job to bring understanding
of MANET which the terminology informational RFCs are doing in each
concept/group-charter.

> 		ink with which it was written was dry.

So when new concepts appear any WG needs to prepare updates I-D to
their information/standards/experiments so that knowledge is
consistent and concepts are updated as will (including terminology
document can be updated). Please note that our documents in MANET are
a source of information to any participant in IETF, so we need to
focus to not only produce new concepts/work but we see into
update/obsolete previous work if possible/necessary. other wise why
did the IETF make an option possibility to *update* and *obsolete* if
they are not needed for WGs.

> 		WG (and to implementers of the WG protocols).

Please note that the bigest reason of terminology is that when WG
participants discuss things they don't misunderstand. Please note
there are many times in MANET WG there are misunderstood in technical
terms (I have references on the list to many incidence if you ask), so
if experts have this problem we need to solve it by a RFC document,
also we need to give the protocol user a sense of the general/specific
terminology (as we have MANET general format, MANET general
understanding, MANET general direction).

> 		not exclusively, "Logical (virtual) Link", "Physical Link", and "Link").

I disagree that thoes terms are out of scope of the I-D of the MANETs
context terminology, because those terms you mentioned were used in
one/some MANET RFCs, so they need to be explained to bring all terms
together to make overall knowledge to internet community. Your
argument is right only if we are not specifying network-protocols, so
because we are doing a type of network, then our documents for it
SHOULD be *connected* by some combined meaning/knowledge *words*, so
other (i.e. all internet community) can understand, without any
possibility of misunderstanding (there are many examples I can give if
you want).

I thank you for your comments, and I will prepare a new version for the I-D,

Best Regards

Abdussalam Baryun
=====================

---

From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:59:30 +0000

>> I do not see the need for this terminology document in MANET:

In my opinion as a working group participant, this is an unnecessary distraction for the working group, and will not result in a meaningful document. I will not support it. 

Regards,
Stan

---

From: Joe Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:40:06 -0400

Additional +1 

I believe there is no need for this

Sent from my iPhone

---

From: Don Sturek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:51:34 -0700

+1

Agreed.  I don't see any value in MANET to the proposed I-D.

Don

On 7/23/12 7:59 AM, "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>In my opinion as a working group participant, this is an unnecessary
>distraction for the working group, and will not result in a meaningful
>document. I will not support it.
>
>Regards,
>Stan
>
>
>
>
>>> 		indicated in this list) would likely be obsolete and incomplete
>>>before
>>> the
>>> 	o	Certainly, a large number of terms in this document are entirely
>>>out of
>>> scope
>>> 		medium"), are by nature ambiguous (such as, but not exclusively,
>>>"Upper
>>> Layer"
>>> 		and "Node"), carry a legacy that renders them difficult to use (such
>>>as,
>>> but
>>>>>> Communications¹ Technology or Facility:
>>>>>> devices¹ technology in the L2 information Base.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Network-level Topology:
>>>>>> IP. Physical interfaces are the nodes¹ attachment to physical links.
>>>>>> it MUST be identified by the MANET routing protocol. An interface
>>>>>>MAY
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> A node interface that participate in; exchange MANET information
>>>>>>used
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> (e.g as the term used in RFC6130). A MANET interface MUST be
>>>>>>assigned
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> a logical interface it MAY be assigned to only logical addresses,
>>>>>>but
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> A L2 protocol TLV with a header and payload. In some technologies
>>>>>>the
>>>>>> L2
>>>>>> transmitted radio packet. Attacker¹s processes MANY be used by
>>>>>>attacker

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:21:11 -0700

+1

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <[email-masked]
> wrote:

---

From: Bo Berry <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:08:01 -0400

+1

On Jul 23, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:

> +1
> 
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) <[email-masked]> wrote:

----
[email-masked]
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. This email may contain information that is protected by NDA. Any unauthorized review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.