Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04
review-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04-genart-lc-even-2014-03-22-00

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 2013-11-19
Requested 2013-11-02
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-2014-03-22
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg09351.html
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Draft last updated 2014-03-22
Review completed: 2014-03-22

Review
review-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04-genart-lc-even-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.


Roni


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

mailto:jari.arkko

 at piuha.net]
> Sent: 21 November, 2013 3:51 PM
> To: Roni Even; Martin Stiemerling
> Cc: draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs.all at tools.ietf.org; gen-art at ietf.org;
ietf at ietf.org
> 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,
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.
> 
> 
> 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
3
> are perhaps more fine-grained that in most requirement documents, but they
> are not implementation requirements, and hence an informational document
is
> 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
interpreted
> them in an abstract sense, i.e., there was no specific suggestions on
additions to
> LFSes.
> 
> Jari