Re: [nfsv4] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-10: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Tom Haynes <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Warren (and likewise Dave),
>
> I went with:
>
>    control communication requirement:  is the specification for
>       information on layouts, stateids, file metadata, and file data
>       which must be communicated between the metadata server and the
>       storage devices.  There is a separate set of requirements for each
>       layout type.
>


Nice! Thank you...

W

>
>> On Apr 16, 2018, at 4:34 PM, Tom Haynes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Warren, Ill try to clean it up.
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types-10: 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-layout-types/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Thank you for this.
>>>
>>> I had one readability issue -- I find:
>>> " control communication requirements:  are for a layout type the
>>>     details regarding information on layouts, stateids, file metadata,
>>>     and file data which must be communicated between the metadata
>>>     server and the storage devices."
>>>
>>> to be very hard to read. I tried for a while to break this up into multiple
>>> sentences but was unable. It would be nice if the authors could succeed where I
>>> failed...
>>>
>>>
>>
>



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf