Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04
review-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04-genart-lc-even-2013-10-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-11-01
Requested 2013-10-18
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -04 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Roni Even
Review review-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04-genart-lc-even-2013-10-29
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg09213.html
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Draft last updated 2013-10-29
Review completed: 2013-10-29

Review
review-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04-genart-lc-even-2013-10-29

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: