Subject: [nfsv4] AD review: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-07

From: ext Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:40:11 -0700

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 13:
 > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 > document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].

   Is there any need to use RFC2119 terms in this document at all, given
   that it is raw XDR code? If not, I'd suggest to drop the RFC2119
   language (only present in some source comments) together with this
   paragraph and the corresponding reference.

Section 1., paragraph 3:
 > #!/bin/sh
 > grep "^  *///" | sed 's?^  *///??'

   Nit: IMO document readability would be a bit better if the sentinel
   sequence were followed by a whitespace ("/// ", or even "| ").

Section 2., paragraph 0:
 > 2.  Security Considerations
 > None.

   I'd refer to the security considerations section of [3] here. It's
   almost as short and may prevent a SEC person from complaining.

Section 3., paragraph 0:
 > 3.  IANA Considerations
 > None.

   I'd simply say that all IANA considerations are discussed in the IANA
   Considerations sections of [3].

Section 4.2., paragraph 1:
 > [3]  Shepler, S., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "NFS Version 4.1, A Work
 >      In Progress", Internet
 >      Draft draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-24.txt, December 2007.

   This needs to be a normative reference. (Also, the other document
   doesn't have "a work in progress" in the title :-)

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4