Re: [nfsv4] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09: (with COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Adamson, Andy
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09: 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-multi-domain-fs-reqs/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Thanks for following the advice in the SecDir review:
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06652.html
>>
>> I think the draft could be a bit more clear, following Russ' comments a
>> bit further.  I had similar questions in this version, but then read his
>> review and the responses.  I'll leave this as a comment for the AD since
>> my comments would be similar to those already made.  If the draft could
>> read a bit better, that would be helpful.
>
> Hi Kathleen
>
> Thank you for the review. I’ve responded to Russ and added clarifying text that I hope resolves your comments.

Hi Andy,

Is that text in the current version?  If so, additional clarifying
text would be helpful.  His review helped in my understanding of the
draft.  It made it possible for me to review the draft in a shorter
amount of time, but actually reading the draft and having the points
Russ raised explained better would be helpful.  If it's not in the
current version,where can I find the updated text?

Thanks,
Kathleen
>
> —>Andy
>>
>>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen