ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04

2013-11-21 07:51:03

Roni: many thanks for the review.


Minor issues:

The document is not a requirement document. It is a use case, requirement and 
solution document so the abstract and the title are confusing.

I think it will be better to have the use case section before the 
requirements in section 3. Since the use cases are the reason for the rest of 
the document.

Section 3 is called requirements but it is not about requirements from a 
solution but also normative text about behavior of clients and servers.

This leads to the question why is it Informational document since it has 
normative recommendations for a solution.


Has there been a response to this? I can not find further e-mails relating to 
this topic, but I'm sorry if I just missed them. It would be good to get the 
authors/sponsoring AD to reply before we recommend approving the document.

FWIW, I have read the document and think that the requirements in Section 3 are 
perhaps more fine-grained that in most requirement documents, but they are not 
implementation requirements, and hence an informational document is OK from my 
perspective. 

I also think that there is a need for IANA section to discuss requirements  
for new LFSs.


There was quite a lot of discussion of LFSes in the document, but I interpreted 
them in an abstract sense, i.e., there was no specific suggestions on additions 
to LFSes.

Jari


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>