Telechat Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09
review-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09-genart-telechat-carpenter-2016-08-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-08-30
Requested 2016-08-23
Authors Andy Adamson , Nicolás Williams
I-D last updated 2016-08-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Russ Housley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian E. Carpenter
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2016-08-26
review-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09-genart-telechat-carpenter-2016-08-26-00
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2016-08-26
IETF LC End Date: 2016-07-06
IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-01

Summary: Ready with issues
--------

Comment: After my Last Call review I expected to see a new version,
-------- but that hasn't happened yet.


Minor issue:
------------

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

I understand that the AD suggested the standards track, but the document
reads more like a BCP than a Proposed Standard to me. As I read through the
document, it describes alternatives and differing scenarios.

Nits:
-----

  ** 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.

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

This needs to be fixed.