Our first draft is moving through the IETF Independent Submission Process,
and is now waiting for the author.
As far as I know, the two other reviewers have not sent in their reviews.
and it would be good have have all the reviews in before submitting a new draft.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization and Independent Submissions
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:15:07 -0700
From: Nevil Brownlee <[email protected]>
Organization: Independent Stream
To: Derrick Brashear <[email protected]>
CC: ISE <[email protected]>, Hartmut Reuter <[email protected]>, "Douglas E.
Engert" <[email protected]>
Hi Derrick:
Henry Hotz has sent me the appended review of your draft, so I've changed
its state to ISR-AUTH. Would you please consider his comments, and publish
a new revision that addresses them.
I'm still waiting for reviews from Simon Wilkinson and Jeff Altman, I'll
prod them now!
Cheers, Nevil
On 08/01/2011 06:21 PM, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
I've looked
at<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names-09> and
it is generally fine per-se as to content.
What I see as significant problems are historical artifacts of the
standardization process. This document updates a protocol that does not have a
pre-existing standard description. Consequently, there are a number of things
which are referenced, but not defined.
The biggie is the Rx protocol itself. The standard reference for that is Ed Zayas'
"AFS-3 Programmer’s Reference: Specification for the Rx Remote Procedure Call
Facility", Version 1.2 of 28 August 1991. I don't know if that should be a
normative or informative reference. I'm inclined to say informative since it isn't a
standards document and wasn't even really binding on Transarc when they put it out.
That document appears to define everything which I had marked as needing
definition when I read the draft.
The following comments are just nits:
An informative reference to "AFS-3 Programmer’s Reference: Architectural
Overview" might also be useful, but not necessary. (It's referenced by the Rx doc
anyway.)
Section 6 makes no mention of how an entity is authenticated. Not sure it
needs to, but I felt funny about it.
The sentence "It is expected. . ." near the top of page 6 seems unclear to me. More
generally the language concerning how names are to be compared stays strictly to what the GSSAPI
standards say. Speaking from experience people violate the "MUST NOT" because they need
to deal with case-folding caused by Microsoft Active Directory. I wish I had some
standards-confoming procedure which also worked with AD without deployment conventions or other
presumptions, but I don't. Absent such a thing I can't suggest (or even ask for) changes, but I
could wish for some language that better reflected practical necessity.
The PrCapabilities line near the top of page 7 should be indented one more
level.
On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
Hi Henry:
It's been about three weeks since you volunteered to review
the draft: draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names
Can you estimate when you'll be able to send me the review,
please?
Cheers, Nevil
On 9/05/11 12:26 PM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Nevil:
Both Simon and I will do so.
Thanks.
Jeffrey Altman
On 5/8/2011 6:45 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
Hi Douglas:
Yes, you've defined 'independent reviewer' correctly.
Two reviews would be enough, that would be Henry (not involved
in AFS3 efforts) and one other - Simon and Jeff, could you please
decide which of you will do it? (Of course, if you'd both like to,
that would be fine too).
Here's the note I usually send to prospective reviewers:
"would you be prepared to do a more detailed review, with two
parts:
a) Comments for the Authors
Reasons for rejection or suggestions for improvements.
These will be returned to authors (or you may wish to have
email discussions directly with authors). Could they also
be published on the Independent Submissions web site,
either as public reviews or as anonymous reviews?
b) Comments for the Independent Submissions Editor
These are advice to the ISE, and will not be published."
Cheers, Nevil
--
Nevil Brownlee (ISE), [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
[email protected], or [email protected]
--
Nevil Brownlee (ISE), [email protected]
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
