Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03
review-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03-opsdir-lc-wang-2017-05-30-00

Reviewer: Zitao Wang (Michael)

Review result: Has Nits

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.

Document reviewed:  draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-03

Summary:

In many important environments, inheritable NFSv4 ACLs can be
rendered ineffective by the application of the per-process umask.
This can be addressed by transmitting the umask and create mode as
separate pieces of data, allowing the server to make more intelligent
decisions about the permissions to set on new files. This document
proposes a protocol extension which accomplishes that.

I think the document is written very clear, except some small nits:

Page 2: As a result, inherited ACEs describing …
        Suggest expanding the “ACE” or adding a reference since the term first
        appeared.

Page 3: The same solution should work for NFS.

        Suggest adding a reference here.

A run of idnits revealed no errors, flaws. There were 4 warning and 3 comments
though

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (March 03, 2017) is 80 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'LEGAL' is defined on line 195, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4506' is defined on line 207, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5661' is defined on line 210, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5662' is defined on line 214, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'LEGAL'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SUSv4'

     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best Regards!
-Michael

_______________________________________________

OPS-DIR mailing list

OPS-DIR at ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir