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

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 07:18 UTC

From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Jari Arkko' <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, 'Martin Stiemerling' <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <017c01ced3ca$a1189380$e349ba80$@gmail.com> <5AF04873-8DC6-4452-A3CA-EA2D4971332A@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <5AF04873-8DC6-4452-A3CA-EA2D4971332A@piuha.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:14:47 +0200
Message-ID: <0cb501ceeb40$5eb2e620$1c18b260$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AQHxYV64WyL/xUIMgWAU13aq00VnagEKBYZcmetr3fA=
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs.all@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04
Precedence: list

Hi Jari,
I did not see any response.
As for my comment, I expected a requirement to list requirements from a
solution  that will be followed by a solution document. To me it reads more
like a solution description so it is more requirements from implementations.


Roni


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net]
> Sent: 21 November, 2013 3:51 PM
> To: Roni Even; Martin Stiemerling
> Cc: draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs.all@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org;
ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04
> 
> 
> Roni: many thanks for the review.
> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Has there been a response to this? I can not find further e-mails relating
to this
> topic, but I'm sorry if I just missed them. It would be good to get the
> authors/sponsoring AD to reply before we recommend approving the
> document.
> 
> FWIW, I have read the document and think that the requirements in Section
3
> are perhaps more fine-grained that in most requirement documents, but they
> are not implementation requirements, and hence an informational document
is
> OK from my perspective.
> 
> > I also think that there is a need for IANA section to discuss
requirements  for
> new LFSs.
> >
> 
> There was quite a lot of discussion of LFSes in the document, but I
interpreted
> them in an abstract sense, i.e., there was no specific suggestions on
additions to
> LFSes.
> 
> Jari

[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