[nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-03: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

General: I don't expect a change in approach this late in the process, but I
think the approach of this update (replacing, inserting, and updating sections
in the updated RFC) is pretty unfriendly to the readers. This would make sense
if we actually rendered patched versions of updated RFCs, but we do not. This
leaves readers to flip back and forth to figure out the context of each update.

§1: s/"which enables"/"that enables"

§5.1 Does "updated introduction" to section 8.4 mean the same as "replaces
section 8.4, but not it's subsections?"

§5.2.2 (and other sections that add a new subsection to 8.4). Are these assumed
to be inserted in a particular location under 8.4? That is, can you state the
new section numbers? Otherwise the reader is left to guess where these would be
inserted.

§6: What is meant by "outside section 8"?