> On Oct 30, 2023, at 8:25 AM, Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review result: Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. > > Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-nvme-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2023-10-30 > IETF LC End Date: 2023-11-01 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > The document is ready for publication as a standard track RFC > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > THe security section has normative language “SHOULD NOT be deployed” in two > paragraphs. Is there a reason for SHOULD NOT and not “MUST NOT”. I hope the > security review will mention it since I am not a security expert The reason for using "SHOULD NOT" is that "SHOULD NOT" is typically how documents that have been produced by the nfsv4 WG have soft- mandated proper security in situations where the security policy depends on administrator choice. The Security Directorate seems copacetic with this language, thus my opinion is to leave it as-is. -- Chuck Lever -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
