Thank you very much Kathleen for the review. Based on this review and my own quick review, I have balloted No-Objection.
Jari On Mar 29, 2013, at 11:58 PM, "Haynes, Tom" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
