Hi Jari, I did not see any response. As for my comment, I expected a requirement to list requirements from a solution that will be followed by a solution document. To me it reads more like a solution description so it is more requirements from implementations. Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 21 November, 2013 3:51 PM > To: Roni Even; Martin Stiemerling > Cc: draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04 > > > Roni: many thanks for the review. > > > > > Minor issues: > > > > The document is not a requirement document. It is a use case, requirement > and solution document so the abstract and the title are confusing. > > > > I think it will be better to have the use case section before the requirements > in section 3. Since the use cases are the reason for the rest of the document. > > > > Section 3 is called requirements but it is not about requirements from a > solution but also normative text about behavior of clients and servers. > > > > This leads to the question why is it Informational document since it has > normative recommendations for a solution. > > > Has there been a response to this? I can not find further e-mails relating to this > topic, but I'm sorry if I just missed them. It would be good to get the > authors/sponsoring AD to reply before we recommend approving the > document. > > FWIW, I have read the document and think that the requirements in Section 3 > are perhaps more fine-grained that in most requirement documents, but they > are not implementation requirements, and hence an informational document is > OK from my perspective. > > > I also think that there is a need for IANA section to discuss requirements for > new LFSs. > > > > There was quite a lot of discussion of LFSes in the document, but I interpreted > them in an abstract sense, i.e., there was no specific suggestions on additions to > LFSes. > > Jari