Reviewer: Suhas Nandakumar Review result: Ready with Nits 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-?? Reviewer: Suhas Nandakumar Review Date: 2020-01-27 IETF LC End Date: 2020-01-27 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Thanks for the work. This document is clear in the problem to be solved . This document is ready to be published as it-is, however I do have few clarification questions for my own understanding Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: 1. The draft doesn't specify normative procedures on sender/receiver behavior when certain fields are missing (say size of all zeroes). Should the draft say recommended procedures for handling these scenarios ? 2. Also i didn't see fallback procedures to be followed when the server reported size isn't of much use to the sender of the data . In such case the sender might decide to go with existing explicit RDMA data transfer operations instead of failing the connection ? -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
