TLV Naming in the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Generalized Packet/Message Format
draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-05

The Abstract isn't very abstract -- which is to say it's very long.  Can you let the Introduction do the heavy lifting, and cut the Abstract back to, say, the last two paragraphs with a little editing (to expand "TLV" there and to replace "those registries" with something like "the MANET TLV registries defined in RFC 5444")?

Other than that, I have no comment but that this is a fine thing to do, and it doesn't surprise me that Adrian brought it up.

- I wonder if this document should only update RFC5444, or all the RFCs that are changed in IANA?
Let's take an example:
 The IANA Registry "Message TLV Types" is changed to Table 1.

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

                        Table 1: Message TLV Types

The current IANA entries for that registry are:
Type 	Description 	Reference
0 	INTERVAL_TIME 	[RFC5497]
1 	VALIDITY_TIME 	[RFC5497]
2-4 	Unassigned 	
5 	ICV 	[RFC7182]
6 	TIMESTAMP 	[RFC7182]
7 	MPR_WILLING 	[RFC7181]
8 	CONT_SEQ_NUM 	[RFC7181]
9-223 	Unassigned 	
224-255 	Reserved for Experimental Use 	[RFC5444]

I guess that, if I would read RFC 5497 and the new registry, the story would be complete since RFC5444 is updated by  draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-RFC-to-be. Anyway, just asking the question so that we doubleckeck. Basically, if Michelle Cotton is fine, I'm fine.

- I agree with Barry regarding the abstract length.