Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2024-06-12
Requested 2024-05-29
Authors Thomas Haynes , Trond Myklebust
I-D last updated 2024-06-14
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Assignment Reviewer Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 04
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-06-14
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last
call comments.

The summary of the review is Ready with Nits

This document extends some Network File System calls. It appears that these
are just matters of execution efficiency. Although I am not very
knowledgeable in the complexities of the current evolved NFS, I tend to
agree with the Security Considerations that these extensions do not affect

It is a little unusual to include an implementation experience discussion
in a standards track document (Section 4.1) but it seems useful in this


Global: I was initially a bit confused about NFS versions. I guess it's the
NFS v4 WG and the title says 4.2 and there are lots of references to RFC
8881 which is 4.1... I guess the Introduction makes it clear enough that
these are v4.2 extensions. It would not hurt to make this clearer.

Section 3, last paragraph: "The server MUST mark REQUIRED as being
supported." -> "The server MUST mark REQUIRED flags as being supported."

Section 4, 1st paragraph:
    "a open" -> "an open"
    In the last line of this paragraph, the reference to Section 18.9 of
RFC 8881 seems to be wrong. I do not see any reference to GETATTR in that
Section of RFC 8881.

Abstract: The comment/note in the Abstract section about draft discussion
is marked in the xml with what should be the right xml adornment but I
don't like the result in the draft. Not the author's fault but this note
looks at first glance like it is part of the Abstract. Probably the line
about the note being removed before publishing as an RFC should end in a
colon, not a period. For this sort of reason, I personally never use the
xml <note removeInRFC="true"> construct but always do it manually with an
appropriate text message. Since the RFC Editor reads the draft ;-) there is
no problem with just text saying something like "RFC Editor: please remove
the following paragraph before publication." I'll submit an issue against

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA