Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 21 November 2013 13:50 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285211ADF27; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:50:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525] autolearn=ham
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 I7ao2L-ydqIx; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C062B1ADF12; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0DE12CC6C; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:50:40 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RJK5F3QHLqfw; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:50:40 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F882CC48; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:50:37 +0200 (EET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <017c01ced3ca$a1189380$e349ba80$@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:50:35 -0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5AF04873-8DC6-4452-A3CA-EA2D4971332A@piuha.net>
References: <017c01ced3ca$a1189380$e349ba80$@gmail.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs.all@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:50:50 -0000
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