Subject: [nfsv4] Benoit Claise's No Record on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530-migration-update-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:38:19 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530-migration-update-07: No Record

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-rfc3530-migration-update/

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

Quick update from Victor Kuarsingh, part of the OPS DIR review:
I am still going through the draft.  I is taking me long then normal
since the writing style is making it hard to parse faster.  So far, here
is where my analysis is going.

    edits needed to fix up language (very conversational in nature – not
sure if that’s what the IETf normally wants)
    it’s hard to extract the updated requirements in the document as they
appear both in bullet points, and in paragraphs (thus far)
    Quite a bit of time spent on what should not be done by
servers/systems (seems helpful).
    However, the entire document was focused on fixing implementation
problems/challenges conducting migrations for NFSv4.0 which should be
benefiting (given it’s based on real world implementation challenges)
    I had pre-scanned the document ahead of time, and it appears the
guidance in section 5/6 will be where the meat of the discussion is.
    Nothing really bad jumps out at me just yet (other then hard to
follow).