[nfsv4] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-05: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 24 May 2017 22:43 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs@ietf.org, Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler@gmail.com>, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, nfsv4@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149566579508.8693.12245321319430275689.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 15:43:15 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/DfEZ3b-S9cQdMnqyM4Yf-xlN_aw>
Subject: [nfsv4] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-05: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-05: 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-xattrs/



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

My understanding of draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning is that extensions are
tightly bound to precisely one minor version of NFS, and become part of
the mandatory-to-understand (but not necessarily implement) XDR for the
next minor version. Based on this, I would expect any extension based on
the new scheme defined by draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning to be exceeding
clear about which minor version they apply to (e.g., in the abstract,
introduction, and/or title -- ideally all three). I can infer that this
extension applies to 4.2 based on the timing of its publication request
and a few sidelong mentions of 4.2 in the text, but I think this really
needs to be more prominent.

Editorial:

- The code which is extracted from this document contains a copyright
date of 2012. Is that intentional?

- The "RFCTBD10" string in the code block in section 7.1 is highly likely
to be overlooked by the RFC production center in its final production
steps. I would recommend a note (either inline or as an RFC editor note
to accompany the document) that explicitly calls out a need to replace
this string.

- Please expand the acronym "ACE" on first use.

[nfsv4] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-n… Adam Roach