Chuck, Ranges include the 0,255 that appears commonly in the document in attribute definitions along with one case of -2147483648,2147483647. Kind regards, -Peter On 10/21/12 3:27 PM, "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Oct 21, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Peter Yee <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> >> >> Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol-13 >> Reviewer: Peter Yee >> Review Date: Oct-19-2012 >> IETF LC End Date: Oct-22-2012 >> IESG Telechat date: TBD >> >> >> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits >>that >> should be fixed before publication. [Ready with nits.] >> >> >> This Standards Track document describes a protocol for maintaining a >> Namespace Database for use with federated filesystem protocols. The >> document is well-written with good examples and little need to jump back >> and forth in the text to understand it. >> >> General: Are ranges (in attribute values) inclusive or exclusive? They >> appear to be inclusive, but it might be worth saying that somewhere, if >> only once. > >Can you give me an example of a range that might need clarification? > >I will address these comments and co-ordinate draft updates with our WG >editor, Tom Haynes. > >Thanks for your review. > >> Section 2.7, NsdbName definition: expand NSDB to Namespace Database as >> this is the first use of the term. >> >> Section 2.8.1, 2nd sentence: "extention" -> "extension" >> >> Section 2.8.3, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: in addition to checking for >> added FSL records, shouldn't the fileserver also be checking for deleted >> or migrated FSLs? And why would the fileserver do this at the >>expiration >> of the FSN TTL instead of waiting for the next access to the that FSN? >> Otherwise the fileserver could be generating unnecessary traffic, >>although >> there is a tradeoff to be made vs. performance. >> >> Section 2.8.3, 3rd paragraph after bullet items, 1st sentence: "which" >>-> >> "that". (Yeah, I know, grammar police.) >> >> Section 2.9, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "admininistrative" -> >> "administrative" >> >> Section 2.12, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: expand NCE (NSDB Container >> Entry) as this is the first use of the term. >> >> Section 3.2, item #5: "fs_location" -> "fs_locations" >> >> Section 4.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: probably worth expanding "DSE" >> to "DSA-specific entry" here. >> >> Section 4.2.1.8, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: bracket "Section 2.8.1" in >> "(see" and ")" for readability. >> >> Section 4.2.2: "LDAP Objects" -> "LDAP Object Classes" seems >>appropriate. >> >> Section 4.2.2.1, 2nd and 3rd sentences: replace "fedfsFsn" with >> "fedfsNsdbContainerInfo" >> >> Section 4.2.2.2, 5th paragraph: how is the prohibition on referencing >> other attributes in the fedfsFsn object class supposed to work if this >> document is the defining document for that object class? >> >> Section 5.1.3.1, 1st paragraph after LDIF definition: a port number of >> 2049 is given. Since this is already the default value, why not use a >> different value? Otherwise, there would be no practical need to include >> that port number in the FSL creation request. >> >> Section 5.1.3.1, 1st paragraph after LDIF definition: "up to date" -> >> "up-to-date" >> >> Section 5.1.3.2, 2nd paragraph: "a" -> "an" >> >> Section 5.1.3.2, table entry for "fedfsNfsVarSub": "substituion" -> >> "substitution" >> >> Section 5.1.4, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: "a Fileset location" -> "an >> FSL" >> >> Section 7.3, 2nd paragraph, "Specification" value: presumably this will >>be >> changed to the RFC number when issued? >> >> Section 8, 1st paragraph (definition of Administrator): "an" -> "a" >> >> Section 8, 3rd paragraph (definition of Client): "filesystem access" -> >> "file-access" for consistency of usage with the rest of the document. >> >> Section 8, 5th paragraph (definition of Fileserver): rather than >> discussing "a filesystem", should this be "one or more filesystems"? Or >> is a fileserver limited to exporting one filesystem? >> >> Section 8, 8th paragraph (definition of Filesystem Access Protocol): >> following up on the 3rd paragraph, should this be "File-access Protocol" >> for consistency? >> >> Section 8, 9th paragraph (definition of FSL), 2nd sentence: >>"fs_location" >> -> "fs_locations". >> >> >> > >-- >Chuck Lever >chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com > > > > >
Attachment:
default[4].xml
Description: XML document