On Nov 11, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Danny McPherson wrote:
On Nov 11, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
I agree that these changes are all minor enough that any one of these
could be handled by an RFC editor's note. The issue that I have is
that
there are a lot of them, and this document
On Nov 18, 2008, at 4:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
Thanks for doing this review.
-- Section 2.3.4, second paragraph, last sentence:
This policy SHOULD be implemented when
storage devices do not provide atomicity for concurrent
read/write
and write/write operations to the
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document:
David,
Thank you to Ben for the review. His comment on GETDEVICEINFO points out
a problem in the draft. The problem is that the preceding paragraph
references GETDEVICELIST, where it should really reference GETDEVICEINFO.
So, in section 2.2.2 Volume Topology, the text:
The
