Add LAYOUT_WCC to NFSv4.2's Flex File Layout Type
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layoutwcc-05

Yes

Zaheduzzaman Sarker

No Objection

Deb Cooley
Erik Kline
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
John Scudder
Mahesh Jethanandani
Murray Kucherawy
Orie Steele
Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw
Warren Kumari
Éric Vyncke

No Record

Francesca Palombini

Summary: Has enough positions to pass.

Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Yes
Deb Cooley
No Objection
Comment (2025-01-03) Sent 
Section 5:  Security Considerations:   It seems odd to me that allowing the DS and MDS on different servers doesn't drive a security concern.  Given this draft is a refinement to RFC8435, do the security considerations from that RFC apply to this draft?

Thanks to Ben Schwartz for his secdir review, and to Carsten Bormann, who parenthetically alludes to this situation.
Erik Kline
No Objection
Gunter Van de Velde
(was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2025-01-09) Sent for earlier 
Thanks for resolving my DISCUSS with the proposed text suggestion approval
Jim Guichard
No Objection
John Scudder
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Orie Steele
No Objection
Comment (2025-01-07) Sent 
Thanks to Carsten for the ART ART Review.

It appears his comments were addressed: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/X8W1v3biypQyb1ECaP4OQvwnd-k/

However, I do not see a reply from him, confirming this on the list.

I have no further comments on this document.
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2025-01-07) Sent 
** Editorial.  Earlier reference to XDR.  I would have benefited from an earlier reference to XDR/RFC4506, say in Section 1.1.  Section 3 has XDR definitions but it isn’t explained to the reader until Section 4 that this is the underlying format.

** I had a similar question to Deb’s about security considerations.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Francesca Palombini
No Record