Subject: [nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-40: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:48:46 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-40: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To be honest, I can't offer much commentary on the 80 odd pages of XDR. I
note that the sheperd's writeup says "“Verified XDR provided in documents
is appropriate and aligns with XDR syntax and standards.”  I'm not sure
if that means manually verified or mechanically verified. (Hopefully the
latter.)

The IANA considerations delegate to [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2]. But
the IANA section there only contains a reference to RFC 7569. Maybe this
draft could directly reference the RFC, or just say "No IANA
considerations."?