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

"Adamson, Andy" <> Mon, 29 August 2016 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8969D12D867; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.469
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7KooqR3C05Zy; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3B9212D859; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,252,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="140393020"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2016 12:50:03 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:50:03 -0700
Received: from ([::1]) by ([fe80::a009:cb7a:e519:7347%21]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:50:02 -0700
From: "Adamson, Andy" <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09
Thread-Index: AQHR/1gXstXkfGZzMkOJrM5nZMQLm6Bg07gA
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:50:02 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, General Area Review Team <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:51:08 -0000

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:10 AM, Brian E Carpenter <> 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
> <>.
> 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"


"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.

   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.


> 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.