[nfsv4] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-40: (with COMMENT)

["Alvaro Retana" <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-40: 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-minorversion2/



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

I have no objection to this document, but the relationship with the older
versions and how versioning is handled is not clear to me.  Some parts of
the document that add to my confusion:

- Section 2. (Minor Versioning) says that “NFSv4.2 only defines
extensions to NFSv4.1”, but draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning [*] says that
“minor versions zero and one are not extensible.”

- Section 1.1. (Scope of This Document) says that “NFSv4.2 is a superset
of NFSv4.1, with all of the new features being optional”.  Which sounds
to me as if this document is defining more optional features for NFSv4.1
and not an extension.

In any case, I am not familiar with the versioning (which is why I wanted
to learn about it), but I am now more confused than before.  It may all
be a case of terminology..

[*] Why isn’t the reference to draft-ietf-nfsv4-versioning Normative? 
Also, the reference ([NFSv4-Versioning]) is not formatted correctly.