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