Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09

Brian, Andy, thanks for the reviews and changes and new versions. I plan to ballot “no objection” for this document on Thursday. That being said, I do note the BCP/PS question, and my own opinion is that BCP would have equal strength, and if it were up to me, I’d pick that category. However,

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09

Hi, Thanks for version -10. I appreciate the clarification to the title etc. (All the same, a BCP is just as mandatory as a Draft Standard. But it's a judgment call, of course.) Regards Brian Carpenter On 30/08/2016 07:50, Adamson, Andy wrote: > >> On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:10 AM, Brian E

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:10 AM, Brian E Carpenter > 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 wait for direction from

[Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please