Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25

"Haynes, Tom" <Tom.Haynes@netapp.com> Wed, 08 May 2013 04:23 UTC

Return-Path: <Tom.Haynes@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC84921F8BBA; Tue, 7 May 2013 21:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.246
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.246 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D4GYjzdu+ro4; Tue, 7 May 2013 21:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C471921F8E04; Tue, 7 May 2013 21:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,632,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="50602248"
Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 07 May 2013 21:23:19 -0700
Received: from vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com (exchsmtp.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.35]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r484NJtS016033; Tue, 7 May 2013 21:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.6.213]) by vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 7 May 2013 21:23:19 -0700
From: "Haynes, Tom" <Tom.Haynes@netapp.com>
To: Jiankang YAO <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
Thread-Topic: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25
Thread-Index: AQHON1NmG4n4vmHpakGWVyE63IdR7Jj7TjkA
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 04:23:18 +0000
Message-ID: <3A330EAE-1D6F-439E-9378-D569A9233D5F@netapp.com>
References: <6E0E2EDBD7BF49FF94AD9DBA96C88E07@LENOVO47E041CF>
In-Reply-To: <6E0E2EDBD7BF49FF94AD9DBA96C88E07@LENOVO47E041CF>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-ID: <331D85026B1354429A88EEBC06537C1A@hq.netapp.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 08 May 2013 08:01:50 -0700
Cc: "<iesg@ietf.org>" <iesg@ietf.org>, "<apps-discuss@ietf.org>" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 04:23:26 -0000

Hi  Jiankang,

I spoke with our internationalization expert and they describe that our use of
stringprep is informative and as a guideline.

As such, we will move the reference to no longer be normative and thus
keep the document to refer to the existing version of UNICODE.

Thanks,
Tom

On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:57 AM, Jiankang YAO <yaojk@cnnic.cn> wrote:

> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer 
> for this draft (for background on appsdir, please 
> see 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate 
> ).  
> Please resolve these comments along with any other comments 
> you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document 
> shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: 
> draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25 
> Title: 
> Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Protocol
> 
> 
> Reviewer: Jiankang Yao
> Review Date: April 12, 2013
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This draft is very long. I mainly focus on section 12 of this document.This part is about internationalization.
> 
> Major issue:none.
> 
> Minor issue:
> 
>  This part refer to ISO.10646-1.1993, which is almost same to UNICODE 3.2. The RFC3454 referred by this document is also based on ISO.10646-1.1993. The problem is that the UNICODE has been updated to Version 6.2 from version 3.2. RFC3454 may not work for UNICODE 6.2.
>  Should this document be updated to refer to the new version of UNICODE?
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Jiankang Yao