Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-07.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:57:33 +0100

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-masked]

PS: the version on the gen-art site is the 06?
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art