> On Jan 5, 2016, at 6:07 PM, Elwyn Davies <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Tom. > > The existence of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530-migration-update was pointed out to > me this evening. After a cursory read I realised that SETCLIENTID had been > MNI'd in 4.1 so that there is a minor infelicity in the comments in > minorversion2-dot-x (and in 4.1). > > The comment here: >> /// /* >> /// * Program number is in the transient range since the client >> /// * will assign the exact transient program number and provide >> /// * that to the server via the SETCLIENTID operation. >> /// */ >> /// program NFS4_CALLBACK { >> /// version NFS_CB { >> /// void >> /// CB_NULL(void) = 0; >> /// CB_COMPOUND4res >> /// CB_COMPOUND(CB_COMPOUND4args) = 1; >> /// } = 1; >> > is not correct for versions 4.1 and 4.2. The program number comes from > CREATE_SESSION or BACKCHANNEL_CTL in versions 4.1 and 4.2. > > Please update the comment to reflect the current situation.
Done > > Cheers, > Elwyn > > > On 17/12/2015 20:09, Elwyn Davies wrote: >> Hi, Tom. >> >> Excellent... so I think we are done with dot-x. >> >> One additional point that I was going to write into the main minorversion2 >> review relating to referencing the requirements RFC 7204. rpcsec-gssv3 >> also references the requirements RFC but the amount of info that is needful >> to support implementers seems to be mostly in minorversion2. Would it be >> possible for you and Andy to work out if anything extra is really needed in >> minorversio2 (about guest mode primarily I think) so that the requirements >> reference is not needed and rpcsec-gssv3 can just reference minorversion2 >> for all info on the modes? I wasn't sure what, if anything, extra was >> needed in minorversion2. >> >> Cheers, >> Elwyn >> >> On 17/12/2015 02:19, Tom Haynes wrote: >>>> On Dec 13, 2015, at 4:44 PM, Elwyn Davies <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >>>> like any other last call comments. >>>> >>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>>> >>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>> >>>> Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39.txt >>>> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies >>>> Review Date: 2015-12-13 >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2015-12-09 >>>> IESG Telechat date: (if known) - >>>> >>>> Summary: Ready with nits. The XDR specification appears to be a superset >>>> of the v4.1 XDR specification and combines a correction of the five >>>> remaining discrepancies between v4.1 and v4.0bis ( definition and use of >>>> the NFS4_OTHER_SIZE constant, addition and use of the ascii_REQUIRED4 >>>> type, modification of the typedef of linktext4). The additions of the 4.2 >>>> interface appears to match the specification in >>>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 except for two attribute typedef items >>>> mentioned below. One discrepancy would have no operational effect as the >>>> type used in the other draft is an alias for the type used here but the >>>> clone_blksize error changes the size of the type. >>>> >>>> I have checked that the extracted code is accepted by rpcgen and generates >>>> files as expected. >>>> >>>> Major issues: >>>> None >>>> >>>> Minor issues: >>>> None >>> >>> >>> Hi Elwyn, >>> >>> Thanks for the review - sorry for the delay in responding, I’m just now >>> surfacing from my job. :-) >>> >>> Responses inline. >>> >>>> Nits/editorial comments: >>>> Observation: It might be useful to note that this XDR specification is >>>> fully upwards compatible with the v4.0bis with the minor exception of the >>>> clientaddr4 structure which has been replaced by (strictly, aliased to) >>>> netaddr4 which has the same members with the same purposes but the names >>>> have changed (r_netid -> na_r_netid, r_addr ->na_r_addr). This effectively >>>> fully reconverges the v4.0bis and v4.1 strands of the XDR. >>>> >>> Shamelessly stolen almost verbatim! >>> >>>> Line 1145: In draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 we have typedef length4 >>>> fattr4_space_freed >>>> whereas in this draft we have >>>> typedef uint64_t fattr4_space_freed >>> Fixed this in the XDR document. >>> >>>> Line 1149: In draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 we have typedef length4 >>>> fattr4_clone_blksize >>>> whereas in this draft we have >>>> typedef uint32_t fattr4_clone_blksize >>> >>> And for this one, I made the change to uint32_t in >>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 . >>> >>> Thanks again! >>> Tom >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
