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

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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)

[Ballot comment]
I found it 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.

[Ballot comment]
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).

IANA comments:

IANA understands that the IANA actions required for this document are
completely outlined in draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-26 -- a document also
under consideration by the IESG.

As a result, upon approval of this document, IANA has NO ADDITIONAL actions
other than those outlined in the companion document draft-ietf-nfsv4-
minorversion1-26.

[Ballot comment]
>  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.

[Ballot comment]
>  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 this description includes operations and features from NFSv4.0 than RFC 3530 should be included in the lest of references

[Ballot discuss]
I think this document should specify which document, this or the main spec, is the normative version if a conflict is found between the two.

The license of this code should be made very clear. I don't know if the new IPR rules  makes that easier or harder.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd For this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document
and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Spencer Shepler. Spencer has reviewed
the documents and believes they are ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

This document represents the NFSv4.1 protocol as specified in
XDR. The main NFSv4.1 document has received many formal reviews
and this document as well as a result.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?

No concerns exist.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
the interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.

No such concerns exist.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is consensus within the NFSv4 working group.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met
all
formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are
not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for
their
completion? Are there normative references that are downward
references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these
downward
references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure
for them [RFC3967].

Yes.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
the document?

Yes.

If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries?

Yes.

Are the IANA registries clearly identified?

Yes.

If the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a
reasonable name for the new registry?

Yes.

See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

N/A

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
automated checker?

Yes.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This Internet-Draft provides the XDR description for NFSv4
minor version one.

Working Group Summary

This document is the result of long construction, review, and
prototyping. While not all features of the main
specification of NFSv4.1 (and as a result this document) have
been prototyped or implemented the mainline features have
received reasonable prototyping.

Document Quality

The NFSv4.1 specification was subjected to a series of formal
reviews or walk-throughs that resulted in close review and
resultant issues and resolutions. As a result, the NFSv4.1
documents are complete and of reasonably high quality.