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 revision | 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 | |
Authors | David Noveck | |
I-D last updated | 2017-05-02 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -09
by Russ Housley
(diff)
Artart Last Call review of -09 by Matthew A. Miller (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Russ Housley |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 11) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2017-05-02 |
review-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-09-genart-lc-housley-2017-05-02-00
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/