Subject: [nfsv4] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-04

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:02:01 -0500

Dear Authors,

I've completed my AD evaluation for this draft. It's really clean and easy
for me to understand.

I noticed one nit that you'd probably like to change before Last Call (the
fewer things reviewers have to complain about, the fewer Last Call comments
you'll see).

In this text,

   Note that the XDR code contained in this document depends on types
   from the proposed NFSv4.2 nfs4_prot.x file [RFC7863].  This includes
   both nfs types that end with a 4, such as nfs_cookie4, count4, etc.,
   as well as more generic types such as opaque and bool.

and this text,

   In order to provide fine-grained access control to query or modify
   extended attributes, additions are proposed to the set of access
   rights that can be checked to determine if the client is permitted to
   perform the xattr operation.

I noticed that the draft is still written like a draft - "proposed". At
this point, the text should be what you'd expect to see in an approved RFC
- so, something like

   Note that the XDR code contained in this document depends on types
   from the NFSv4.2 nfs4_prot.x file defined in [RFC7863].  This includes
   both nfs types that end with a 4, such as nfs_cookie4, count4, etc.,
   as well as more generic types such as opaque and bool.

and

   In order to provide fine-grained access control to query or modify
   extended attributes, new access rights are defined for the set of access
   rights that can be checked to determine if the client is permitted to
   perform the xattr operation.

Could you submit an update? And then I'll request Last Call.

Thanks again for a really clear document!

Spencer

---

From: Manoj Naik <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 04:07:04 +0000

Spencer,

I have submitted an update (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-05.txt) with the updated text.

Thanks,
Manoj.

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 12:02 PM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, NFSv4 <[email-masked]>
Subject: AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-04
Resent-From: <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Resent-Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 12:03 PM

Dear Authors,

I've completed my AD evaluation for this draft. It's really clean and easy for me to understand.

I noticed one nit that you'd probably like to change before Last Call (the fewer things reviewers have to complain about, the fewer Last Call comments you'll see).

In this text,

and this text,

I noticed that the draft is still written like a draft - "proposed". At this point, the text should be what you'd expect to see in an approved RFC - so, something like

and

Spencer

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:23:31 -0500

Hi, Marc and Manoj,

On Apr 28, 2017 23:07, "Manoj Naik" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Spencer,

I have submitted an update (https://www.ietf.org/id/
draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-05.txt) with the updated text.

Thanks for the speedy response.

I've requested Last Call for the versioning draft, the umask draft, and the
xaddrs draft.

Spencer (D)

Thanks,

Manoj.

*From: *Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
*Date: *Friday, April 28, 2017 at 12:02 PM
*To: *"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
*Cc: *"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, NFSv4 <[email-masked]

*Subject: *AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nfsv4-xattrs-04
*Resent-From: *<[email-masked]>
*Resent-To: *<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
*Resent-Date: *Friday, April 28, 2017 at 12:03 PM

Dear Authors,

In this text,

and this text,

and

Spencer