[secdir] Re: [Last-Call] SECDIR Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid-04

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I tried running the xml source through the current on-line version of
xml2rfc and it seems like the note to be removed by the RFC Editor is
better marked now, sometimes by shading. So I don't think that change
is needed, which seems to be the only open question below.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:04 PM Thomas Haynes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2024, at 11:46 AM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Donald,
>
> Thanks for the review - sorry I missed this email.
>
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> The summary of the review is Ready with Nits
>
> This document extends some Network File System calls. It appears that these are just matters of execution efficiency. Although I am not very knowledgeable in the complexities of the current evolved NFS, I tend to agree with the Security Considerations that these extensions do not affect security.
>
> It is a little unusual to include an implementation experience discussion in a standards track document (Section 4.1) but it seems useful in this case.
>
> Nits
> ----
>
> Global: I was initially a bit confused about NFS versions. I guess it's the NFS v4 WG and the title says 4.2 and there are lots of references to RFC 8881 which is 4.1... I guess the Introduction makes it clear enough that these are v4.2 extensions. It would not hurt to make this clearer.
>
>
> The reason we reference RFC 8881 more than RFC 7863 is that RFC 7863 is an extension of RFC 8881. As such, most operations are defined in that RFC.
>
> I don’t know how to call it out further as yiuy suggest - perhaps I am too close to it and believe what is there is sufficient?
>
>
> Section 3, last paragraph: "The server MUST mark REQUIRED as being supported." -> "The server MUST mark REQUIRED flags as being supported."
>
>
>
> Done
>
>
> Section 4, 1st paragraph:
>     "a open" -> "an open"
>
>
> Done
>
>
>     In the last line of this paragraph, the reference to Section 18.9 of RFC 8881 seems to be wrong. I do not see any reference to GETATTR in that Section of RFC 8881.
>
>
>
> Done
>
>
> Abstract: The comment/note in the Abstract section about draft discussion is marked in the xml with what should be the right xml adornment but I don't like the result in the draft. Not the author's fault but this note looks at first glance like it is part of the Abstract. Probably the line about the note being removed before publishing as an RFC should end in a colon, not a period. For this sort of reason, I personally never use the xml <note removeInRFC="true"> construct but always do it manually with an appropriate text message. Since the RFC Editor reads the draft ;-) there is no problem with just text saying something like "RFC Editor: please remove the following paragraph before publication." I'll submit an issue against xml2rfc.
>
>
> Do you still want this done?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  [e-mail]
> --
> last-call mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>