Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid-06
review-ietf-nfsv4-delstid-06-artart-lc-thompson-2024-08-26-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2024-06-12 | |
| Requested | 2024-05-29 | |
| Authors | Thomas Haynes , Trond Myklebust | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-03-26 (Latest revision 2024-10-02) | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -04
by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
(diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Henry S. Thompson (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Henry S. Thompson |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/bOIQ1EhNbyBTcSguwO3CWLNnwig | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2024-08-26 |
review-ietf-nfsv4-delstid-06-artart-lc-thompson-2024-08-26-00
Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid-06 Intended RFC status: Proposed Standard Review type: artart - Last Call review Reviewer: Henry S. Thompson Review Date: 2024-08-26 Result: Ready with minor issues *Summary* *Substantive points* *Minor points* Section 2.1: Probably worth mentioning that the 'CODE' shown here is defined per RFC 4506. Section 4: "The open stateid field, OPEN4resok.stateid ..., will MUST be set to the special all zero" There's a typo here, and in any case I _think_ it should be expanded slightly for clarity: "The open stateid field, OPEN4resok.stateid ..., MUST be set to the special all zero in this case." Section 4.1: I'm not familiar with the implementation details of NFS, but I find this discussion difficult to follow. Perhaps it would help if it were expanded to show what the two compounds sequences look like for the two different values of OPEN_ARGS_SHARE_ACCESS_WANT_OPEN_XOR_DELEGATION. Section 5: As far as the protocol itself is concerned, this section looks OK to me, but the mixture of BCP14 keywords and ordinary language to describe the correct _use_ of the protocol with respect to the various times involved is quite confusing, and would benefit from a more structure, in the form of an analysis by cases. *Nits* Section 3: "Note that as these flags MUST only change from OPTIONAL to REQUIRED when the NFSv4 minor version is incremented" --- something wrong with the grammar here, possibly just delete "as". Section 6: I think "the that" should be just "that", but you may possibly have meant just "the". ht --