Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09
review-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09-genart-lc-housley-2017-05-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-05-12
Requested 2017-04-28
Other Reviews Artart Last Call review of -09 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Russ Housley
Review review-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09-genart-lc-housley-2017-05-02
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/lmjX_qJvtNxt2ua1JjWYLoQVj8M
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 11)
Review result Almost Ready
Draft last updated 2017-05-02
Review closed: 2017-05-02

Review
review-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09-genart-lc-housley-2017-05-02

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2017-05-02
IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-08
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

Summary: Almost Ready

Major Concerns:

This document, once approved, will update RFC 5661 and RFC 7862.  It
seems to me that it should also update RFC 7530.  It fulfills a promise
made in Section 11 of RFC 7530.

Minor Concerns:

In Section 4.2, the last bullet in the section is unusual.  That bullet
add a new context for the entire list of bullets.  It would be better
for the introduction to the list to provide the full context at the
beginning.

Nits:

Throughout the document, some bullet items end with periods and others
do not.  Use of the period is more common.  Please pick one style and
use it throughout the document.

The last sentence of the Introduction is not clear.  After reading it
several times, I think you are trying to say:

   ... enabling interoperation to proceed just as if both
   implementations supported only the parts of the protocol
   that are being used.

In Section 2.3:
s/(not necessarily proper)/(not necessarily a proper subset)/

In Section 4.4.2, in the last set of bullets, the first bullet begins
with "The minor version consists", but it should begin with "When the
minor version consists".  The "so" following the comma should also be
removed.

In Section 6, 2nd paragraph, I found the text confusing because
"following" is used with two very different meanings in the same
sentence.  I suggest: S/to following/to obeying/