Subject: [nfsv4] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:25:14 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-07: 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-rpcrdma-bidirection/

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

Edit: I meant to add, thanks for a well written and easy to read
document!

Some minor comments:

-4.1: This is the first mention of "credits", and there is no definition.
I realize that the term is defined in the reference from the previous
section. It would be helpful to mention that in the context of that
reference.
--  Are there any head-of-line-blocking issues introduced by
bidirectional transactions? For example, can a reply get stuck behind
requests that are blocked by flow control?

-5.4, 4th paragraph, last sentence: Can a reverse requestor reasonably
give up or time out, rather than wait "indefinitely"?

-8:  This implies that reverse direction transactions do not change
anything.If that is the case, please say so explicitly. For example, Is
there any change to authentication for reverse calls? I am not an expert
in direct memory access transport protocols; are there every situation
where authentication depends on an initial request from the client?