Vijay, thanks for your review of this document. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Dec 18, 2019, at 5:54 PM, Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All: This email serves as the second half of the review of
> draft-ietf-nsfv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-03.
>
> I reviewed pages 297 to the end of the document, mostly for editorial and
> similar comments from a generalist point of view.
>
> The disposition remains the same as before ("Ready with Nits"). In addition
> to the nits I outlined in my previous email (reproduced below), here is one
> additional one:
>
> 1/ S18.51.1: What is the value of bracketing the code with <CODE BEGINS> ...
> <CODE ENDS> in this, and the next section? Clearly, you have code in the
> previous section, and later sections, without such bracketing. Uniformity
> dictates that the code in these two sections be given the same treatment as
> the code in previous sections. If, on the other hand, there is some
> significance to such bracketing, it may be good to comment on such a
> significance in S 18.51.1.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:17 PM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker
> <nore...@ietf.org <mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote:
> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> 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
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-??
> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Review Date: 2019-12-17
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-25
> IESG Telechat date: 2019-12-19
>
> I have reviewed about 1/2 of the I-D, up to Section 12 (page 297). I will
> review the remaining 1/2 before the telchat, but I suspect that given my very
> high level overview of the draft, my disposition will not change.
>
> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. In the
> portion of the draft I reviewed, there are some minor nits that can easily be
> fixed.
>
> Major issues: 0
>
> Minor issues: 0
>
> Nits/editorial comments: 4 ("Sn" means Section n):
> 1/ Appendix A: s/No correesponding explanation/No corresponding explanation/
> 2/ S1: s/authoritative complete/authoritatively complete/
> 3/ S1.7 (page 12): "associable" or "associated to"
> 4/ There are many long lines that go beyond 80 characters, see S1.9, the
> bullet
> that starts with “o Open files can be …”, Table 1, S4.2.1, etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:Gen-art@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
