[nfsv4] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-01

[[e-mail]]

Thomas Haynes <[e-mail]> writes:
> I believe I have addressed all of your points, even if I did not
> directly reply to your points. I.e., an earlier rewrite might impact
> the scope of your comments.

Thanks for taking care of this!

It looks like you've considered everything carefully and resolved the
issues I see.  

>> The text is written for people who have the entirety of the previously
>> defined protocol in their heads, and know all of the processing
>> paths.  
>
> I will not argue this point.
>
>> That is, it's a very densely-written sent of amendments, with
>> no clear indexing of exactly what execution paths are affected by what
>> extensions/requirements.  It would be better if the items were broken
>> apart, the text expanded, and keyed to the definitions of the
>> procedures which are being amended.

I suppose I could argue that changes ought to address this issue, but
that is probably a monstrous piece of work, and the result possibly not
easier to read and digest than the current document structure.  So I am
going to defer to the authors about that.

Dale