[art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-01
Shuping Peng via Datatracker <[email protected]> Thu, 22 Aug 2024 01:11:19 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.apps-discuss,gmane.ietf.nfsv4 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <172431427928.2528543.17950906430538024372@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k> |
Reviewer: Shuping Peng Review result: Ready with Issues I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft. Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: Major Issues: "No major issues found." Minor Issues: 1.1 Definitions I found that the terms listed here are exactly the same as those defined in RFC8435. So I wonder whether it would make sense to simply refer to RFC8435 instead of repeating them. 2. Layout State Recovery "After the grace period: If the client were to send any lrf_stateid in the LAYOUTRETURN with the anonymous stateid of all zeros, then the metadata server would respond with an error of NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE (see Section 15.1.9.3 of [RFC8881])." I am not sure whether there is an mistake in this sentence: "to send any lrf_stateid in the LAYOUTRETURN with the anonymous stateid of all zeros"? Should "with" be "other than"? 4. IANA Considerations "IANA should use the current document (RFC-TBD) as the reference for the new entries." What are the "new entries" mentioned in this sentence? Would it be clearer to list them here? Nits: None _______________________________________________ art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]