Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-06
review-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-06-genart-lc-nandakumar-2020-01-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-01-27
Requested 2020-01-13
Authors Chuck Lever
Draft last updated 2020-01-30
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Suhas Nandakumar (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Yaron Sheffer (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Niclas Comstedt (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Suhas Nandakumar
State Completed
Review review-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-06-genart-lc-nandakumar-2020-01-30
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/rGU9fbpAGtmz55Rcdfnl9ZsqMIo
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-01-27

Review
review-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-06-genart-lc-nandakumar-2020-01-30

Reviewer: Suhas Nandakumar
Review result: Ready with Nits

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-??
Reviewer: Suhas Nandakumar
Review Date: 2020-01-27
IETF LC End Date: 2020-01-27
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Thanks for the work. This document is clear in the problem to be
solved . This document is ready to be published as it-is, however I do have few
clarification questions for my own understanding

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
1. The draft doesn't specify normative procedures on sender/receiver behavior
when certain fields are missing (say size of all zeroes). Should the draft say
recommended procedures for handling these scenarios ?

2. Also i didn't see fallback procedures to be followed when the server
reported size isn't of much use to the sender of the data . In such case the
sender might decide to go with existing explicit RDMA data transfer operations
instead of failing the connection ?