I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2016-07-05 IETF LC End Date: 2016-07-06 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Ready with issues -------- Comment: I was asked to review -08 but found -09 has been posted, with -------- considerable changes, during Last Call. Minor issues: ------------- "This document provides guidance on the deployment of..." Sounds more like a BCP than a Proposed Standard to me. As I read through the document, it describes alternatives and differing scenarios. That also seems like BCP to me. One example: > 7. Resolving Multi-domain Authorization Information > > When an RPCSEC_GSS principal is seeking access to files on an NFSv4 > server, after authenticating the principal, the server must obtain in > a secure manner the principal's authorization context information > from an authoritative source such as the name service in the > principal's NFSv4 Domain. That's underspecified for a standard but perfect for a description of best practice. The choices between lower-case and upper-case "must" seem fairly arbitrary. There are only 5 instances of "MUST" and one "REQUIRED". Maybe this document just doesn't need RFC2119 keywords? ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1813 This reference was added in the -09 version. I believe it should be Informative instead of Normative. If not, a new Last Call mentioning the downref is necessary. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1831 (Obsoleted by RFC 5531) This needs to be fixed. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
