Thanks, all, and in particular thank you Elwyn for your detailed review effort. 
Including running rpcgen. Thanks.

I have balloted no-objection for this draft.

Jari

On 06 Jan 2016, at 17:16, Thomas Haynes <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
>> 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

Reply via email to