[nfsv4] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10: (with COMMENT)
"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 30 August 2016 20:47 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietf.org
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B6F12B034; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.31.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147259004562.23685.4230186211321856907.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:47:25 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/pioyL3XTz_fimP0KWSFpSFHPq-g>
Cc: nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs@ietf.org
Subject: [nfsv4] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:47:26 -0000
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-10: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - general: I agree with Kathleen who agrees with Russ' secdir review. [1] I was left puzzled as to how this would be useful to readers. But I've no objection if that's felt to be the case. However, I'd really encourage the editors/WG/AD to consider that a number of folks (who are familiar with GSS etc.) have found this draft pretty unclear. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06642.html - abstract: 1st sentence seems unwieldy - it puzzled me anyway;-) - (various places): Would "identifier syntax" not be better than "identity syntax"? There's no need to bikeshed on it, but I do prefer the latter a good bit in case that helps:-) - 5.3: Would that "must never" in the 2nd last para be clearer as an RFC2119 "MUST NOT"? (Just checking.) - 6.1: Are there any cases of domain names that allow for escaping or have other syntatic features that involve more than just octet string comparisons to check domain name equality? I don't think there are, so just checking. If there were, then you might need to say something about that somewhere.
- [nfsv4] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-i… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [nfsv4] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on dra… Adamson, Andy
- Re: [nfsv4] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on dra… Stephen Farrell