Subject: [nfsv4] comment on dnoveck-nfsv4-internationalization-02

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:40:40 +0000

Hi-

I've read through the -02 revision of $(Subject), and would like to put
a few comments on record.

It's difficult for me to provide more than shallow comments, as I'm not
familiar with the general topic, implementations of i18n within NFSv4,
or the previously published specifications. The purpose of these comments
is to register an opinion about whether the document is ready to be adopted
as a WG document.

Random thoughts:
* The document's short title misspells "internationalization".
* IMO the sections describing history and changes since previous publications
are not normative, and thus should be relocated to the appendix, or removed.
* The inclusion of notes on how to handle internationalization in future
extensions to NFSv4 is going to be valuable.

I am in favor of moving this material to a separate document, and extending
it to cover all minor versions of NFSv4. I feel the current revision is in
good shape and is ready for adoption.

--
Chuck Lever

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 10:39:22 -0500

> a few comments on record.

Thanks.

> It's difficult for me to provide more than shallow comments

> Deep or profound comments, while desirable, are not a requirement*.*

>  as I'm not

familiar with the general topic,

Nevertheless, this topic was addressed by many of the wg's rfcs and needs
to be addressed now.

implementationss of i18n within NFSv4

> Actually, such implementations can be quite simple, unlike implementations
> of i18n in rfc3530 and rfc5661, which don't exist. Nobody has tried to
> write one.

>
> or the previously published specifications

> You are not alone in that.  Many wg members are in that position.

>
> Thee purpose of these comments

We also need others to provide their opinions on the question.

> * The document's short title misspells "internationalization".

Will fix that.

* IMO the sections describing history and changes since previous
> publications

Some of that material will be moved but all rfcs contain non-normative text
to provide motivation/explanation. We can address disagreement about
details later in the process.

> extensions to NFSv4 is going to be valuable.

That's not normative and would be ignored if put into an appendix.

> good shape and is ready for adoption.

I agree but we probably need to hear from other wg members.  The current
draft expires 3/10 and I would like the question to be resolved by then.

>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>