Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-07-06
Requested 2016-06-22
Authors Andy Adamson, Nicolás Williams
Draft last updated 2016-07-06
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Russ Housley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-08-genart-lc-carpenter-2016-07-06
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2016-07-06


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2016-07-05
IETF LC End Date: 2016-07-06
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: Ready with issues

Comment: I was asked to review -08 but found -09 has been posted, with
-------- considerable changes, during Last Call.

Minor issues:

"This document provides guidance on the deployment of..."

Sounds more like a BCP than a Proposed Standard to me. As I read through the
document, it describes alternatives and differing scenarios. That also seems
like BCP to me. One example:

> 7.  Resolving Multi-domain Authorization Information
>   When an RPCSEC_GSS principal is seeking access to files on an NFSv4
>   server, after authenticating the principal, the server must obtain in
>   a secure manner the principal's authorization context information
>   from an authoritative source such as the name service in the
>   principal's NFSv4 Domain.

That's underspecified for a standard but perfect for a description of
best practice.

The choices between lower-case and upper-case "must" seem fairly arbitrary.
There are only 5 instances of "MUST" and one "REQUIRED". Maybe this document just
doesn't need RFC2119 keywords?

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1813

This reference was added in the -09 version. I believe it should be
Informative instead of Normative. If not, a new Last Call mentioning
the downref is necessary.

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1831 (Obsoleted by RFC 5531)

This needs to be fixed.