Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2019-02-19
Requested 2019-02-05
Authors David Noveck, Chuck Lever
Draft last updated 2019-03-07
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 Carpenter
Assignment Reviewer Éric Vyncke 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04-opsdir-lc-vyncke-2019-03-07
Reviewed rev. 04
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2019-03-07


Reviewer: Eric Vyncke
Review Status: has issues

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Issues spotted: lack of readability, interoperation with existing implementations.

This standard track 106-page document updates 600-page (!) RFC 5661 (NFSv4.1 which is already standard track) by adding clarifications and corrections concerning features related to the use of attributes related to file system location especially when a server is trunked (i.e. has multiple IP addresses).

The document is not easy to read as it updates sections of RFC 5661. There are also 11-line sentences such as in section 1. While I can understand that having a RFC 5661-bis is a too heavy task, the current approach renders the document not very readable... A companion document (not targeted as RFC ?) applying all the changes in this document to RFC 5661 is mostly required for a good review. At least sections 3.1 and 3.2 provide background.

Clear specifications are always a plus for operations. Also, non ambiguous file system location will also help operations.

OTOH, the difficulty to understand this I-D without being a NFS expert makes it difficult to judge whether a NEW minor version (cfr RFC 8178) would be required to guarantee interoperation.

As a nit, please use RFC 8174.

Hope this helps