Re: [nfsv4] AD review: draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid-03

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

First of all, it is incorrect to have this document marked as updating
RFC8881 since you are not extending NFSv4.1.  Please don't do that as it is
likely to result in confusion if somebody tries implementing these
extensions in 4.1.

Regarding the idnit output, I'm not sure if it is possible to avoid all
output regarding this issue.  My experience has been that the "could be
OK"-text is meant to warn you to check the if the abstract makes sense and
when I get it. I look over the text and submit anyway.  I think that
happened with RFCs 7530 and 8881.




On Mon, Nov 6, 2023, 6:22 PM Thomas Haynes <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Oct 5, 2023, at 3:43 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > # Please clearly mention that this specification will update RFC8881 in
> the abstract.
>
> One of my problems with this is that when I do that, the nit picker
> complains:
>
> Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7863, but the
>      abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC7863
>      though, so this could be OK.
>
>   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8881, but the
>      abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC8881
>      though, so this could be OK.
>
> Here is my abstract for reference:
>
>       The Network File System v4 (NFSv4) allows a client to both open a
>       file and be granted a delegation of that file.  This delegation
>       provides the client the right to authoritatively cache metadata
>       on the file locally.  This document presents several extensions
>       for both the opening and delegating of the file  to
>       the client. This document updates both RFC8881 and RFC7863.
>
> If I change it to:
>
> This document updates both <xref
>       target="RFC8881" format="default" sectionFormat="of"/> and <xref
>       target="RFC7863" format="default" sectionFormat="of"/>.
>
> I get:
>
>  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC7863], [RFC8881]), which
>      it shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of
> the
>      documents in question.
>
>   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7863, but the
>      abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC7863
>      though, so this could be OK.
>
>   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8881, but the
>      abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC8881
>      though, so this could be OK.
>
> So I guess the first form is correct, but how am I supposed to input this
> to not trigger the nits?
>
>