[art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-01

Shuping Peng via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 22 August 2024 08:11 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from [10.244.2.52] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8BB8C169411; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 01:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Shuping Peng via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.22.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <172431427928.2528543.17950906430538024372@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 01:11:19 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: SWCA6JENAMBCYHEPVT2GLPB33JXH6VRN
X-Message-ID-Hash: SWCA6JENAMBCYHEPVT2GLPB33JXH6VRN
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-art.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Shuping Peng <pengshuping@huawei.com>
Subject: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-01
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/aVzKI5hc2zV5COWrr4DlLCeEnHI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:art-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:art-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:art-leave@ietf.org>

Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft.

Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.

Comments:

Major Issues:
 "No major issues found."

Minor Issues:

1.1 Definitions
I found that the terms listed here are exactly the same as those defined in
RFC8435. So I wonder whether it would make sense to simply refer to RFC8435
instead of repeating them.

2. Layout State Recovery
"After the grace period:
If the client were to send any lrf_stateid in the LAYOUTRETURN with the
anonymous stateid of all zeros, then the metadata server would respond with an
error of NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE (see Section 15.1.9.3 of [RFC8881])."

I am not sure whether there is an mistake in this sentence: "to send any
lrf_stateid in the LAYOUTRETURN with the anonymous stateid of all zeros"?
Should "with" be "other than"?

4. IANA Considerations
"IANA should use the current document (RFC-TBD) as the reference for the new
entries."

What are the "new entries" mentioned in this sentence? Would it be clearer to
list them here?

Nits:

None