[nfsv4] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: Discuss

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-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this document.  This is a simple DISCUSS point that should be very
easy to resolve:

— Section 5.2 —

   A sender computes the encoded
   value by dividing the buffer size, in octets, by 1024 and subtracting
   one from the result.

Is the buffer size necessarily a multiple of 1024?  If so, where is that
specified?  If not, what is the encoded value when the buffer size is, say,
2000?  Is it zero?  Or one?


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

Some purely editorial comments:

— Abstract —
The abstract needs to stand alone, so you should expand the term RDMA-CM in the
abstract.  (RPC doesn’t need expanding, so once you’ve expanded RDMA-CM,
RPC-over-RDMA should be OK.)

— Introduction —
Please expand “XDR” on first use.

   Section 7 of the current document

“of this document” is better, I think.

— Section 3.2 —
Please expand “RNIC” and “STag”.

   invalidation without the need for additional protocol to be defined.

Either “an additional protocol” or “additional protocols”.

— Section 4.1 —

   Realizing these goals
   require that implementations of this extension follow the practices

The subject is “realizing”, which is singular.  So, “requires’.

— Section 5.1 —

   Bits 14 - 8:  These bits are reserved and are always zero when the
      Version field contains 1.

In other protocols, leaving it unspecified as to what happens if not all
reserved bits are zero has caused interoperability problems.  If you know
that’s not a concern here, that’s fine.  Otherwise, it might be good to say
explicitly that either they are ignored on receipt or non-zero bits result in
an error.