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.