Skip to main content

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

Request Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-11-19
Requested 2013-11-02
Authors Thomas Haynes
I-D last updated 2014-03-22
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Roni Even (diff)
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)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready
Completed 2014-03-22
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.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [


> Sent: 21 November, 2013 3:51 PM
> To: Roni Even; Martin Stiemerling
> Cc: draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs.all at; gen-art at;
ietf at
> 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,
> 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
> in section 3. Since the use cases are the reason for the rest of the
> >
> > 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
> are perhaps more fine-grained that in most requirement documents, but they
> are not implementation requirements, and hence an informational document
> 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
> them in an abstract sense, i.e., there was no specific suggestions on
additions to
> LFSes.
> Jari