On Oct 21, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Peter Yee <pe...@akayla.com> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> > > Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol-13 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: Oct-19-2012 > IETF LC End Date: Oct-22-2012 > IESG Telechat date: TBD > > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > should be fixed before publication. [Ready with nits.] > > > This Standards Track document describes a protocol for maintaining a > Namespace Database for use with federated filesystem protocols. The > document is well-written with good examples and little need to jump back > and forth in the text to understand it. > > General: Are ranges (in attribute values) inclusive or exclusive? They > appear to be inclusive, but it might be worth saying that somewhere, if > only once.
Can you give me an example of a range that might need clarification? I will address these comments and co-ordinate draft updates with our WG editor, Tom Haynes. Thanks for your review. > Section 2.7, NsdbName definition: expand NSDB to Namespace Database as > this is the first use of the term. > > Section 2.8.1, 2nd sentence: "extention" -> "extension" > > Section 2.8.3, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: in addition to checking for > added FSL records, shouldn't the fileserver also be checking for deleted > or migrated FSLs? And why would the fileserver do this at the expiration > of the FSN TTL instead of waiting for the next access to the that FSN? > Otherwise the fileserver could be generating unnecessary traffic, although > there is a tradeoff to be made vs. performance. > > Section 2.8.3, 3rd paragraph after bullet items, 1st sentence: "which" -> > "that". (Yeah, I know, grammar police.) > > Section 2.9, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "admininistrative" -> > "administrative" > > Section 2.12, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: expand NCE (NSDB Container > Entry) as this is the first use of the term. > > Section 3.2, item #5: "fs_location" -> "fs_locations" > > Section 4.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: probably worth expanding "DSE" > to "DSA-specific entry" here. > > Section 4.2.1.8, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: bracket "Section 2.8.1" in > "(see" and ")" for readability. > > Section 4.2.2: "LDAP Objects" -> "LDAP Object Classes" seems appropriate. > > Section 4.2.2.1, 2nd and 3rd sentences: replace "fedfsFsn" with > "fedfsNsdbContainerInfo" > > Section 4.2.2.2, 5th paragraph: how is the prohibition on referencing > other attributes in the fedfsFsn object class supposed to work if this > document is the defining document for that object class? > > Section 5.1.3.1, 1st paragraph after LDIF definition: a port number of > 2049 is given. Since this is already the default value, why not use a > different value? Otherwise, there would be no practical need to include > that port number in the FSL creation request. > > Section 5.1.3.1, 1st paragraph after LDIF definition: "up to date" -> > "up-to-date" > > Section 5.1.3.2, 2nd paragraph: "a" -> "an" > > Section 5.1.3.2, table entry for "fedfsNfsVarSub": "substituion" -> > "substitution" > > Section 5.1.4, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: "a Fileset location" -> "an > FSL" > > Section 7.3, 2nd paragraph, "Specification" value: presumably this will be > changed to the RFC number when issued? > > Section 8, 1st paragraph (definition of Administrator): "an" -> "a" > > Section 8, 3rd paragraph (definition of Client): "filesystem access" -> > "file-access" for consistency of usage with the rest of the document. > > Section 8, 5th paragraph (definition of Fileserver): rather than > discussing "a filesystem", should this be "one or more filesystems"? Or > is a fileserver limited to exporting one filesystem? > > Section 8, 8th paragraph (definition of Filesystem Access Protocol): > following up on the 3rd paragraph, should this be "File-access Protocol" > for consistency? > > Section 8, 9th paragraph (definition of FSL), 2nd sentence: "fs_location" > -> "fs_locations". > > > -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
