Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04
review-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2019-02-25-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2019-02-19 | |
| Requested | 2019-02-05 | |
| Authors | David Noveck , Chuck Lever | |
| I-D last updated | 2019-02-25 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -04
by Sean Turner
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Éric Vyncke Genart Last Call review of -04 by Brian E. Carpenter |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Brian E. Carpenter |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2019-02-25 |
review-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2019-02-25-00
Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04 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 <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2019-02-26 IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-19 IESG Telechat date: 2019-03-07 Summary: Ready -------- Comments: --------- I was assigned this review very late, so I have not had time to review any technical details. This document is a very major patch to be applied to RFC5661. It is apparently very carefully written with full details of which text in 5661 is changed, but even checking that aspect for correctness would be a major task, which I did not attempt. To be precise, it's a 106 page patch to a 617 page document. I assume that the WG made a conscious decision to do this rather than attempt RFC5661bis. I was a little disappointed not to see an Implementation Status section per BCP205. The writeup says "This document was a result of implementation and deployment experience" but it would increase this reviewer's confidence level if there were a few more details.