Re: Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-01

I now have an rfc5661sesqui-msns-02 ready to go and will submit it whenever
that is appropriate.  This addresses your review comments and deals with
the errata issue by revising sesqui to include 2006 (with some
clarifications) and explaining that the rest of the errata are to be
addressed as part of rfc5661bis.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 12:14 PM David Noveck <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:38 AM Magnus Westerlund <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have now done my review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-01.
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>> The review focuses on introduction, appendix and other things related to
>> the format of the update. I have also gone through the Diff to glance
>> through the changes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. Section 1.1.
>>    Work would have to be done with regard to RFC8178 [61] with which
>>          RFC5661 [60] is curretly inconsistent, in order to arrive at a
>>          situation in which there would be no need for RFC8178 to update
>>          the NFSv4.1 specfication.
>>
>>    I would recommend that you include some words, either title or some
>>    summary of what RFC 8178 is in this text as it is the first occurrence of
>>    the reference.
>>
>>
> I will do that.
>
>
>>
>>    1. The same comment as above also applies to the next paragraph in
>>    respect to RFC 8434.
>>
>>
> OK.
>
>>
>>    1.  Section 1.1: Regarding the second bullet:
>>
>>         o  Work would have to be done with regard to RFC8434 [64] which
>>
>>       curently updates RFC5661 [60].  When that work is done and the
>>
>>       resulting document approved, the new NFSv4.1 specfication will
>>
>>       obsolete RFC8434 as well as RFC5661.
>>
>>    1. When it comes to updating this document, there are no purpose in a
>>       single document. What I understand of the goal with creating complete RFCs
>>       with updates is to avoid having to combine descriptions. However, if 8434
>>       is a self contained functionality it could actually remain as is, and
>>       simply be normatively referenced by 5661bis as being part of NFS 4..1
>>       protocol. Now, I haven’t read through the documents to understand if this
>>       is a possibility or that integrating it is the obvious way forward..
>>
>>
> I think it is a possibility, although I'm not sure yet whether this is the
> best choice.  My feeling, based on what we've seen so far of the
> pNFS-related errata is that substantial work will be needed to clarify this
> area of the spec so we cannot simple leave Sections 12 and 13 as they are
> and leave 8434 as it is.   I'd really like to hear Tom's opinion on the
> best way to proceed.   I can rework the paragraph to leave it open, for
> now, about what approach to take.
>
>
>>    1. What I wrote in 3. Is why there clearly is a possibility to
>>    resolve i18n in a manner that applies to all minor versions .
>>
>> I don't see any reason for these to be different in 4.0 and 4.1.
> Although the transition from mnor version zero hanged lots of things, it
> did not change this.   One possible problem is that if do publish "I18N in
> V4" RFC, it is unclear how it will affect rfc7530.   It wouldn't update
> rfc750 since it would say exactly what rfc7530 says now.  Stiill there is a
> value in having this all in one place even if the existing treatment of
> v4.0 I18N remains as it is until an eventual rfc7530bis.
>
> Section 1.1. I think this text should drop the use of a single document in
> favor of talking about a set of authorative correct specifications. I think
> you could consider the language Adam Roach uses in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-roach-bis-documents/ to motivate
> this approach.
>
> OK.
>
>
>>    1. Section 1.1:
>>        There is a need for a revised treatment of security of in NFSv4.1..
>>          The issues with the existing treatment are discussed in
>>    Appendix C.
>>    Note the two “of” in first sentence.
>>
>>
> Will fix.
>
> Section 1.1: I think the first paragraphs should be a bit more explicit
> about that this is a limited scope update. I would suggest the following:
>
> The revised description of the NFS version 4 minor version 1 (NFSv4.1)
> protocol presented in this update is necessary to enable full use of
> trunking in connection with multi-server namespace features and to enable
> the use of transparent state migration in connection with NFSv4.1.  This
> document is in the form of a updated description of the NFS 4.1 protocol
> previously defined in [RFC5661]. RFC5661 is obsoleted by this document.
> However, the update has a limited and focused scope on enabling full use of
> trunking, the need for these changes are discussed in Appendix A. Appendix
> B described the specific changes made to arrive at the current text.
>
>
>>    1.
>>    This limited scope update is applied on the main NFSv4.1 RFC is
>>    intending to provide an authorative complete specification, the motivation
>>    for this is discussed in [I.D-roach-bis-documents], addressing the issues
>>    within the scope of the update. However, it will not address issues that
>>    are known but outside of this limited scope as could expected by a full
>>    update of the protocol. Below are some areas which are known to need
>>    addressing in a future update of the protocol.
>>
>>
> Like this text.  will incorporate.
>
> Section 22: IANA Consideration
>
> As this document is going to obsolete RFC5661 it will be necessary to
> instruct IANA to update all registry entries and registry rules references
> that points to RFC5661 to point to this document instead.
>
> OK.
>
> I  intend to have these updates available some time next week.   Are you
> expecting a -02 that includes the changes to address your review together
> with the work previously posted to the list to address the oe errata
> relevan to rfc5661sesqui, i.e. 2006?.
>

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