[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Mon, 28 October 2013 10:47 UTC

From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs.all@tools.ietf.org
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:44:03 +0200
Message-ID: <017c01ced3ca$a1189380$e349ba80$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_017D_01CED3DB.64A1FFC0"
Thread-Index: Ac7TypsSaY7BYWH+TserRMvn+rXbGg==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04
Precedence: list

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-nfsv4-labreqs-04

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2013-10-28

IETF LC End Date: 2013-11-1

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

Minor issues:

The document is not a requirement document. It is a use case, requirement
and solution document so the abstract and the title are confusing.

I think it will be better to have the use case section before the
requirements in section 3. Since the use cases are the reason for the rest
of the document.

Section 3 is called requirements but it is not about requirements from a
solution but also normative text about behavior of clients and servers.

This leads to the question why is it Informational document since it has
normative recommendations for a solution.

I also think that there is a need for IANA section to discuss requirements
for new LFSs.

Nits/editorial comments:

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-l… Roni Even
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfs… Jari Arkko
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfs… Roni Even