I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
This draft is ready.  
One non-blocking suggestion comes to mind.  It would be to add subsection references in draft-ietf-storm-rdmap-ext Section 9 (Security Considerations) to RFC5040 and RFC5042.  Such references might better describe how use of ULP Buffer addresses for the Remote Peer buffer addressing by Atomic Operations satisfies the security model described in RFC5042.
Regards,
Adam