Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-02-24
Requested 2017-02-10
Authors Dhananjay Patki, Sri Gundavelli, Jong-Hyouk Lee, Qiao Fu, Lyle Bertz
Draft last updated 2017-02-27
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -02 by Ralph Droms (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-03-genart-lc-dupont-2017-02-27
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2017-02-27


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20170217
IETF LC End Date: 20170224
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: 
 - ToC page 2 and 9 (title) page 8: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 1 page 2: you must expand the abbrevs at first use in the body of
  the document: the abstract is not a part of the body.

 - 1 page 2: singaling -> signaling

 - 3 page 3: suboptions -> sub-options
  (because the dash was at all other uses)

 - 3 page 4: the wording "The sub-options are optional" is ambiguous:
  it can mean that there is no mandatory sub-options or that the
  field can be empty. Obviously it is the first according to the
  section 3 intro "MUST contain one or more".

 - 3.1 page 4: Binding Refresh Control Sub-Option ->
  Binding Re-registration Control Sub-Option
  (it is the official name of the option cf section 6)

 - authors' addresses page 12: China -> P.R. China or ISO 3166 CN
  BTW I have a question about the "Kansas": I can understand
  to put only the state for California or Texas but Kansas? (:-)