Brian, thanks for your review. I entered an Abstain ballot since I don’t think the approach taken with this update is a pattern we want to follow for IETF specifications.
Alissa > On Feb 25, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Brian Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready > > Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04 > > 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-mv1-msns-update-04.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2019-02-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-19 > IESG Telechat date: 2019-03-07 > > Summary: Ready > -------- > > Comments: > --------- > > I was assigned this review very late, so I have not had time to > review any technical details. > > This document is a very major patch to be applied to RFC5661. > It is apparently very carefully written with full details of which > text in 5661 is changed, but even checking that aspect for correctness > would be a major task, which I did not attempt. To be precise, it's > a 106 page patch to a 617 page document. I assume that the WG made > a conscious decision to do this rather than attempt RFC5661bis. > > I was a little disappointed not to see an Implementation Status > section per BCP205. The writeup says "This document was a result > of implementation and deployment experience" but it would increase > this reviewer's confidence level if there were a few more details. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
