Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lmap-framework-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-lmap-framework
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-04-07
Requested 2015-03-01
Authors Philip Eardley, Al Morton, Marcelo Bagnulo, Trevor Burbridge, Paul Aitken, Aamer Akhter
Draft last updated 2015-04-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Tom Taylor (diff)
Secdir Early review of -08 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Sarah Banks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sarah Banks 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lmap-framework-11-opsdir-lc-banks-2015-04-09
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 14)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2015-04-09


	I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

	First, a big thanks to the authors for a decently-sized Security and Privacy Considerations section. I certainly found myself wanting to ask a lot of questions as I read through this, and these two aforementioned sections did a decent job of running through the considerations.
	I did, however, find the lack of normative language distracting, particularly in the face of the considerable security/privacy considerations conversation. If security and privacy are a base requirement, why is there no normative language to that end? As written, it seems completely wide open to the implementation - and maybe this is true even if there is normative language), and I think the document would be well served to consider modification to include normative language.