Hi Kathleen,

Thanks for the review.

Tom

On Mar 29, 2013, at 10:34 AM, "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email protected]>
 wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dot-x-16.txt
> Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty
> Review Date: March 29, 2013
> IETF LC End Date: 2013-04-16
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
> 
> Summary: The document is ready to publish after correcting the nits and the 
> idnits results.  I did not perform any validation on the XDR description.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> In the first sentence of the Abstract, consider adding the word "its":
> Change from:The Network File System (NFS) version 4 is a distributed 
> filesystem
>   protocol which owes heritage to NFS protocol version 2, RFC 1094, and
>   version 3, RFC 1813.
> To: The Network File System (NFS) version 4 is a distributed filesystem
>   protocol which owes its heritage to NFS protocol version 2, RFC 1094, and
>   version 3, RFC 1813.


Agreed

> 
> Recommend adding a comma in the second sentence of the abstract:
> Change from: Unlike earlier versions, the NFS version 4
>   protocol supports traditional file access while integrating support
>   for file locking and the mount protocol.
> To: Unlike earlier versions, the NFS version 4
>   protocol supports traditional file access, while integrating support
>   for file locking and the mount protocol.
> 


Agreed


> In the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the Abstract, I recommend changing 
> from:
> RFC3530bis is formally obsoleting RFC 3530.
> To: RFC3530bis formally obsoletes RFC 3530.


Agreed

> 
> In the second sentence, I recommend changing from (remove but):
> But this document,
>   together with RFC3530bis replaces RFC 3530 as the definition of the
>   NFS version 4 protocol.
> To: This document,
>   together with RFC3530bis replaces RFC 3530 as the definition of the
>   NFS version 4 protocol.


Agreed

> 
> Introduction, second paragraph, first sentence:
> Recommend changing from:  The XDR description is provided in this document in 
> a way that makes
>   it simple for the reader to extract into ready to compile form.
> To:  The XDR description is provided in this document in a way that makes
>   it simple for the reader to extract it into a ready to compile form.


Agreed


> 
> Please resolve all of the idnit errors:
> 
>  Miscellaneous warnings:
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>  == Line 262 has weird spacing: '...xpected   comp...'
> 
>  == Line 628 has weird spacing: '...ned int    cb_...'
> 
>  == Line 689 has weird spacing: '...S4resok   reso...'
> 
>  == Line 719 has weird spacing: '...T4resok   reso...'
> 
>  == Line 785 has weird spacing: '...R4resok  resok...'
> 
>  == (11 more instances…)


These are because of the XDR - I would prefer not to change them.


> 
>  == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC
>     2119 boilerplate text.


Agreed

> 
>  == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
>     first submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  The disclaimer is usually
>     necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that
>     take significant amounts of text from those RFCs.  If you can contact all
>     authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78
>     rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. 
>     Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. 
>     (See the Legal Provisions document at
>     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)


This is essentially a -bis work of RFC3530, with a publication date of
April 2003. The splitting of RFC3530 into two documents is confusing the tool.

I will however contact all of the authors and see if they are willing to grant 
BCP78.


> 
> There are also some errors with references.

Could you please elaborate here?

   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis]
              Haynes, T. and D. Noveck, "NFS Version 4 Protocol",
              draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25 (work in progress),
              Feb 2013.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", March 1997.

   [RFC4506]  Eisler, M., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",
              STD 67, RFC 4506, May 2006.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to