I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq .   Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.   Document: draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2014-12-25 IETF LC End Date:  2014-12-25 IESG Telechat date: NA   Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Experimental RFC but I have some comments.   Minor issues: -Not sure about this, [page 1] says Updates: 2865, 6158, 6929 (if approved). Can an experimental RFC update non-experimental RFCs? I read the note in Section 12.1. Just raising the question.    Nits/editorial comments: -[Page 4], Intro, it would be good to remind the reader on why the 4096 octet limit was put in place initially and what has changed since.   -[Page 4], Section 1, "limitation mean that"--->"limitation means that"   -[Page 4], "this approach does entirely solve"---> should it be "does not" ?   -[Page 5], "the set up"--->"the setup"   -[Page 5], "to implement the draft"--->"to implement the RFC"   -[Page 6], "NOT be used to exchange more than 100K of data", not clear what 100K is here? bytes? why?   -[Page 7], "more than 4K of data", as above, not clear what 4K is?   -[Page 9], "the RADIUS and COA"-->"CoA" instead of "COA"   -[Page 14],"other then Additional-Authorization."--->"other than ..."   -[Page 14]," Compliant RADIUS Chlient"-->"...client"   -[Page 14],"if tey had"--->"if they had"   -[Page 27], "into a even"--->"into an even"     -Other: * Not sure if this RFC should reference to draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets as another alternative to look for? * Please spell at first use: EAP, NAS, PKI, SAML,ABFAB *chunk/chunking, would it be better to use fragment/fragmenting/fragmentation instead ? or mention the two terms are used interchangeably.       Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com