Hi Jari,
I did not see any response.
As for my comment, I expected a requirement to list requirements from a
solution that will be followed by a solution document. To me it reads more
like a solution description so it is more requirements from implementations.
Roni
-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net]
Sent: 21 November, 2013 3:51 PM
To: Roni Even; Martin Stiemerling
Cc: draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04
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