I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-07.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-03-21 IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-26 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: some editorial comments (editorial == to be handled by the RFC Editor by default) and 3 questions (with positive answers): - first question: is the document good for standard track or BCP is better? There are many similar documents in standard track and this document should be handled as its companion drafts, so IMHO there is no issue with standard track. - should NFS and RDMA be more introduced. As this document is for people with a good knowledge of NFS and RDMA IMHO it doesn't need this kind of things. - should RPC abbrev be introduced in the Abstract? As it is a concept (and should be very well known) IMHO I don't think so, i.e., keep the Abstract. Editorial: - 2 page 3: the XDR abbrev should be introduced - 3 page 3, etc: about the case of read/write: operations should get all uppercase, list only the first letter and other all lowercase. In term of grammar: nouns are in all uppercase, adjective one uppercase, verb all lowercase. Applying this: 3 page 3: "null Write list" 4 page 5: "RDMA READs" and "RDMA READ" 5.1 page 7: "as READ or WRITE" 6 page 8: "RDMA READ ad RDMA WRITE" (It is possible I've missed some) Spelling: - TOC and 9 page 9: Acknowledgments Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: the version on the gen-art site is the 06? _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
