[nfsv4] Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-06

Jouni Korhonen <jounikor@gmail.com> Mon, 06 February 2017 18:23 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jouni Korhonen <jounikor@gmail.com>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148640539293.18910.12490747279422914146.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 10:23:12 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/y1QiVJBM-z07VyUJtcbfRJHXtHM>
Cc: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: [nfsv4] Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-06

Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review result: Ready

I am no NFS expert, which makes my review very superficial. The
document itself was good read and did not spot anything
controversial.

The only complaint I have is on the editorial side. There are a number
of abbreviations that are never expanded or referenced where they
originate from. The reader is just assumed to be familiar with
RFC5666, 4506, etc. I would either expand everything (take ULP and XDR
as an example) or have a section/sentence pointing out that this
document uses the terminology established in RFCs x, y and z.

[nfsv4] Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidire… Jouni Korhonen