Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc1832bis Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand Summary: Probably ready, one question.
This is not a proper review. I've only read it once. Not even a proper CC list. Big question: Should there be an IANA registry? The text fits with an IANA registry with "standards action" needed. An alternative would be "requires an updated version of this specification".The current text seems to straddle these alternatives, and land on "no registry, standards action required, but not necessarily on this text".
Note: there hasn't been a need for a new datatype (AFAIK) since 1832, so I think "requires an updated version of this spec" is fine.
I have NOT reviewed the diffs from 1832, so I can't vouch for the truth of the claim to non-changes. That's why the review didn't come before.
Harald
pgpSLC6pJez2r.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
