Subject: [nfsv4] (Teaser for) Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-03

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:41:21 -0500

*General Comments*

*Why this is incomplete*

The rest of this including the detailed per-section comments and the
promised pdf file is not currently going to the nfsv4 list because it
"requires moderator approval" (size issue).   If anyone does not want to
wait for the moderator, please let me know and I'll send the full review
directly to you.

*Overall Evaluation*

I basically agree with Chuck that, that except for extensibility-related
issues, the document is pretty far along, and only needs wordsmithing.
This review will not concern itself with that worsmithing.  I anticipate
going through the document in its entirety, as part of WGLC, which I don't
think is very far off.

The issues with extensibility will be discussed below but they are not
limited to section 9.  I will deal with wordsmithing issues in the sections
I do deal with,

*Issues with Extensibility*

One important issue with extensibility concerns the ability to extend the
XDR without forcing each extension document to publish a complete updated
description that updates RFC5666bis.  to avoid the need for that, I've
proposed some restructuring of the XDR description while maintaining
over-the-wire compatibility with RFC5666.

Within Sectin 9 itself, the major issue is to accommodate the current
Version One error reporting model.  I've proposed dealing with that be
explaining the issues in more abstract terms for the general case and
providing a new sub-section (now 9.b) to deal with the special limited case
of extension for version One.

*Review Format*

I use gmail formatting facilities extensively in this review, including use
of multiple fonts, font sizes, and faces.  To accommodate those for whom
this might be a problem, I've attached a PDF of the review.  Note that if
people want to offer comments in the form of Adobe Reader XI annotations
applied to the review PDF, I'm OK with that.