Re: [nfsv4] feedback on draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning-06

[Mike Kupfer <[e-mail]>]

On 18-Oct-16 3:54, David Noveck wrote:

>> Section 4.4.2
[...]
> Given the way this paragraph is written, the referent of "this" would be
> unclear.  I propose adding the following new final paragraph to section
> 4.4.2:
[...]

Looks good.

>> * Section 4.4.3
[...]
> I intend to add the following:
[...]
That's fine, too.

>> 1. end of page 5, top of page 6:
>
> I intend to replace the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph of
> the section by:
>
>     For example, one may refer to the set of REQUIRED features in a
>     given minor version that has not had a protocol correction since it
>     is the same for all variants within the minor version.  See section
>     9 for a discussion of correcting an existing minor version.

Editing nits:
- A comma before "since" might make it a little easier to read.
- "section 9" should be capitalized.

Otherwise looks good.

>    > 2. page 10:
>
> What I intend to do here is replace the lead-in paragraph for the
> bulleted list by the following:
>
>     Which of these are validly returned by the responder depends on the
>     status of the protocol element in the minor version specified in
>     the COMPOUND or CB_COMPOUND.  The possibilities which can
>     exist when dealing with  minor versions that have not been corrected
>     are listed below.  See section 9.1 for a discussion of the effects
>     of protocol correction.

Editing nit: "section 9.1" should be capitalized.

Otherwise looks good.

> The text in section 9.1 is TBD.

Okay.

thanks,
mike