Last Call Review of draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10
review-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2017-01-03-00

I do not see any major OPS related issues. While reading the document,
I found a number of things the authors should look into:

- Consider to expand SDP and perhaps CLUE in the abstract

- Having both CaptureId and CaptureID in 5.1 is a bit confusing (since
  the two identifiers only differ by the capitalization of the last
  character)

- Both nXML mode in emacs and xmlint indicate that the xml in section
  6 is invalid. Please check. (It could also be an issue with my tools
  and the namespaces but then also the indentation looks at least
  somewhat surprising.

- Is the RFC editor expected to	replace XX in the drawing in section
  5.1 with the value assigned for TBA? If so, I think this needs to be
  documented somewhere.

- Is 'roni.even@mail01.huawei.com' is a long term stable identifier
  for the 'Contact' field of the RTP SDES Compact Header Extensions
  subregistry?

- Security considerations, last	paragraph: What	is 'a lot of trust'?
  Why is the SHOULD not	a MUST?

- s/CaptureIDis/CaptureID is/g

- According to idnits, there are RFCs listed in the references that
  are not cited in the text; please pay attention to idnits reports