Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-02
review-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-02-genart-lc-melnikov-2015-02-13-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2015-02-16 | |
Requested | 2015-02-04 | |
Authors | David Quigley , Jarrett Lu , Thomas Haynes | |
I-D last updated | 2015-02-13 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Alexey Melnikov
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Alexey Melnikov (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Dacheng Zhang (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Alexey Melnikov |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 06) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2015-02-13 |
review-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-02-genart-lc-melnikov-2015-02-13-00
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-lfs-registry-02 Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov Review Date: 2015-02-11 IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-16 IESG Telechat date: N/A. Summary: This draft is nearly ready for publication as a standard track RFC (with nits). Major issues: Minor issues: In Section 4: "LSF" is used for the first time without being expanded. I suggest you introduce the abbreviation in the terminology section. In Section 5: Label Description: - what is the allowed character set for this field? Is it ASCII? Is it UTF-8 with some restrictions? >Status: A short ASCII text string indicating the status of an entry > in the registry. The status field for most entries should have > the value "active". In the case that a label format selection > entry is obsolete, the status field of the obsoleted entry should > be "obsoleted by entry NNN". What is entry NNN? Is it a document reference (e.g. An RFC)? Is it possible to obsolete without such entry? In Section 5.3 - is it possible to update a label description document without requesting a new label? For example if changes are editorial and don't significantly affect label syntax and model. Nits/editorial comments: