Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-06
review-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-06-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2017-02-06-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-02-07 | |
Requested | 2017-01-24 | |
Authors | Chuck Lever | |
I-D last updated | 2017-02-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -06
by Jouni Korhonen
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Radia Perlman (diff) Genart Telechat review of -07 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Jouni Korhonen |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2017-02-06 |
review-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-06-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2017-02-06-00
I am no NFS expert, which makes my review very superficial. The document itself was good read and did not spot anything controversial. The only complaint I have is on the editorial side. There are a number of abbreviations that are never expanded or referenced where they originate from. The reader is just assumed to be familiar with RFC5666, 4506, etc. I would either expand everything (take ULP and XDR as an example) or have a section/sentence pointing out that this document uses the terminology established in RFCs x, y and z.