Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description
RFC 5662

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Lars Eggert) Yes

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-12-04 for -)
No email
send info
I found it very annoying that if you extract this file with the extract script from one of the other NFSv4 drafts (I used the one in pnfs_obj), the end result does not compile. Something to do with the different grep patterns you used in them.

   ///  NFS4ERR_NOENT          = 2,    /* no such file/directory  */
   ///  NFS4ERR_IO             = 5,    /* hard I/O error          */
   ///  NFS4ERR_NXIO           = 6,    /* no such device          */
   ///  NFS4ERR_ACCESS         = 13,   /* access denied           */
   ///  NFS4ERR_EXIST          = 17,   /* file already exists     */
   ///  NFS4ERR_XDEV           = 18,   /* different filesystems   */
   ///  /* Unused/reserved       19 */
   ///  NFS4ERR_NOTDIR         = 20,   /* should be a directory   */

Inconsistent application of the unused/reserved comment (19 is not
the only omitted value above)

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2008-12-04 for -)
No email
send info
I'm concerned about these lines:
   ///  * This file was machine generated for
   ///  *  draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-27

This should point to the RFC when published.

(Chris Newman) No Objection

Comment (2008-12-03 for -)
No email
send info
I support Cullen's discuss.  I note that RFC 5378 section 6 last
paragraph forbids publication of this document with the present
copyright notices.

Let me suggest a path forward:

1. The boilerplate should be updated to RFC 5378 boilerplate.
2. The copyright notices in the code should be removed or should be
   changed to follow the RFC 5378 boilerplate.

The result of this would be that the code license is clear (this would
grant a BSD-style license to the code in the document).

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2008-12-03 for -)
No email
send info
>   In order to facilitate implementations that support both
   NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1, the description includes operations, and other
   features of NFSv4.0 that do not apply to NFSv4.1.

If the descriptin in this document covers operations and features from NFSv4.0 than RFC 3530 should be a normative reference.

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection