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.
This draft defines MIB for MAP-E for use with SNMP. It is well written and I have no concern on operational aspects. Here are a few editorial comments as follows:
1. Please remove unused reference RFC7598.
2. Section 4.1, the 1st paragraph, last sentence
Can you list which parts of the IF-MIB in more details here the MAP-E depends on?
3. Section 4.1.1 two categories on mapping rules
In MIB module definition, it looks the mapping rule is divided into three categories, i.e., BMR, FMR and BMRandFMR,which is not consistent with two categories classification defined in section 4.1.1, I am wondering whether we also have fmrandbmr, i.e., Forwarding Mapping Rule can also be basic Mapping Rule, in other words, is fmrandbmr same as bmrandfmr? Is fmrandbmr a set that belong to both fmr and bmr? Try to understand this, would it be great to clarify this in section 4.1.1.
4.Section 4.1.2 two kind of invalid packets
In MIB module definition, two MapSecurityCheckEntries are defined, one is
mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4, the other is mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4. I am wondering whether    these two entries are corresponding to two kind of invalid packets described in section 4.1.2. 
also I am not sure I understand payload source IPv4 address and port, are these payload source and port are referred to received packets’ source IPv4 address port mentioned in section 4.1.2.
5.Section 6
does this document request IANA to assign new OID under mib-2 or just use existing OID under mib-2?