Re: [nfsv4] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 07:14:49PM -0800, Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker wrote:
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: 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-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I would like to see a resolution of Barry's DISCUSS as well. In addition if you
> are using division by 1024, I think the appropriate range needs to be
> 1KiB-256KiB instead of 1KB-256KB as defined in the draft.

I'm not sure there's really much of an issue there; the stated procedure
(round-tripping through the encoding and decoding processes) seems to have
the effect of rounding down to the next multiple of 1024 bytes, which might
waste a little space but should produce safe operation.  Furthermore, it
can't reduce the buffer size below the current default value.

(That said, I don't object to the diff that was proposed in response to
Barry.)

-Ben