Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 29 August 2016 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCAF12D674; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y4yOw4DSV919; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C659F12D85D; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id p64so912142pfb.1; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OVyphMk1mUtLPGy+7Pibm2eRXkmcMAmA5x15baKpZBk=; b=0dA4HyxxyW34ElU+tx+PWuOYVCkCjSnTHF142wIMkSj00SEnNU8ryfpC/p+h/GhlIm Jct1geru0YvOvyIEPsRdMzUXzR4ueoUp5U/K1w79lIoF/MMHRc91PcBGPMbDSW2a4jrV aO4B5EPstgcpR0do9+zvw90b+LQ/E+7BDMnGfpHGcZP5mBxgRQYhIeGbDNWpjsI7Ga64 ZP4aCpJfnrjaQrEKVx8opoMY6AbHENZz43pdujmG4vKaMjgJYjaJdfC53MPAw3MLCup0 rVL3OWsUy8sD+tWscBlcy1iuGkkLeJkyCK4u3UP9BiVb1Fb+ETZaSO7NEzk1Z4FnX/b0 xjjg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OVyphMk1mUtLPGy+7Pibm2eRXkmcMAmA5x15baKpZBk=; b=Zm7fUVXISGQjsvq6jC6tph3tyw4neT/bmJR9x4H1pgG4oE/wbE0YapdZOA+mCpoW73 deGACZ1TZUyx6umxyZXRs+yXI5DlDbC5mn5xnpM+AbUFWF2uweRV3baA1TgI6X4aS0ln GE6djyarWPPvgD5OGqerS2bjok5gXd5gflZrGx4/pyxtptce3q8Q9QAVOf4yMPKF4yXc g/CZpmj7EEv39Nz8wJZgEob7CiX6lfewzdK3l4aXxXd6xQHL6bpU9oqmI30aW2/0FxVa ELAOs81tY5o83HLvUJyHRN+A9IoIsvP+vepAuY14XUHP5c4zIwgewXw7KYPuhx0Y1Lw6 sQgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNc7W+f7EwZM8O12pVeGWdHb/VT7QlaCf7C6hXqNf6ZUgTf3Dj84tFXEo3JpiuAjA==
X-Received: by 10.98.95.129 with SMTP id t123mr943438pfb.148.1472513022356; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x66sm51648561pfb.86.2016.08.29.16.23.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Adamson, Andy" <William.Adamson@netapp.com>
References: <b1dab089-fd46-a270-636f-87135691d036@gmail.com> <F58C4344-0A36-431B-8F40-C668E96896FF@netapp.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <ca720fb6-b33f-a07a-b49f-c5f42c237e0b@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:23:42 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F58C4344-0A36-431B-8F40-C668E96896FF@netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/YRBDRtdJIefmTVIZk-3Q8JxEsmA>
Cc: "draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs.all@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 23:30:33 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for version -10. I appreciate the clarification to the title etc.

(All the same, a BCP is just as mandatory as a Draft Standard. But it's
a judgment call, of course.)

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 30/08/2016 07:50, Adamson, Andy wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:10 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09.txt
>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>> Review Date: 2016-08-26
>> IETF LC End Date: 2016-07-06
>> IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-01
>>
>> Summary: Ready with issues
>> --------
>>
>> Comment: After my Last Call review I expected to see a new version,
>> -------- but that hasn't happened yet.
> 
> Hi Brian
> 
> Thanks for the review. I left draft-09 until I heard other comments. 
> 
>>
>>
>> Minor issue:
>> ------------
>>
>> "This document provides guidance on the deployment of..."
>>
>> I understand that the AD suggested the standards track, but the document
>> reads more like a BCP than a Proposed Standard to me. As I read through the
>> document, it describes alternatives and differing scenarios.
> 
> 
> This latest round of comments - including the SecDir review from Russ Housley shows that there is still an impedence mis-match between the title/abstract and the intended status of Standards Track versus an Informational draft or best practices.
> 
> I feel that the use of "Guidelines" in the title, and "guidance" in the abstract point to an Informational draft rather than a Standards track.
> 
> This draft is a Proposed Standard (not an Informational or BCP) because the MUST and REQUIRED noted in section 6 of the doc are absolute requirements for an NFSv4 multi-domain file name space to work. These can not be BCP as an NFSv4 multi-domain file name space will _not_ work without these requirements.
> 
> I have completed a draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10 with the following changes:
> 
> 1) The title to be changed from
> 
> "Multiple NFSv4 Domain Namespace Deployment Guidelines"
> 
> to
> 
> "Multiple NFSv4 Domain Namespace Deployment Requirements"
> 
> 
> 2) The first sentence in the abstract (and in the introduction) to be changed from
> 
>    This document provides guidance on the deployment of the NFSv4
>    protocols for the construction of an NFSv4 file name space in
>    environments with multiple NFSv4 Domains.
> 
> to
>    This document presents requirements on the deployment of the NFSv4
>    protocols for the construction of an NFSv4 file name space in
>    environments with multiple NFSv4 Domains. 
> 
> 
> Another common area of comment concerned the “Stand-alone Examples" examples section 5 and "Stand-alone Examples and Multiple NFSv4 Domain Namespaces” section 8. These section describe "alternatives and differing scenarios” to highlight the need for the requirements described in section 6.
> 
> I addressed the example sections comments by adding clarifying text to each of these sections as well as moving the second section from 8 to section 7.
> 
> I have also addressed the remaining comments from Brian, Russ, Alexey Melnikov, and Kathleen Moriarty.
> 
> I’ll upload the new draft soon.
> 
> —>Andy
> 
>>
>> Nits:
>> -----
>>
>>  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1813
>>
>> This reference was added in the -09 version. I believe it should be
>> Informative instead of Normative.
>>
>>  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1831 (Obsoleted by RFC 5531)
>>
>> This needs to be fixed.
>