Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-07.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-03-21 IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-26 IESG Telechat date: 2008-04-24 Summary: Ready Comments: some editorial comments (editorial == to be handled by the RFC Editor by default) and 3 questions (with positive answers): - first question: is the document good for standard track or BCP is better? There are many similar documents in standard track and this document should be handled as its companion drafts, so IMHO there is no issue with standard track. - should NFS and RDMA be more introduced. As this document is for people with a good knowledge of NFS and RDMA IMHO it doesn't need this kind of things. - should RPC abbrev be introduced in the Abstract? As it is a concept (and should be very well known) IMHO I don't think so, i.e., keep the Abstract. Editorial: - 2 page 3: the XDR abbrev should be introduced - 3 page 3, etc: about the case of read/write: operations should get all uppercase, list only the first letter and other all lowercase. In term of grammar: nouns are in all uppercase, adjective one uppercase, verb all lowercase. Applying this: 3 page 3: "null Write list" 4 page 5: "RDMA READs" and "RDMA READ" 5.1 page 7: "as READ or WRITE" 6 page 8: "RDMA READ ad RDMA WRITE" (It is possible I've missed some) Spelling: - TOC and 9 page 9: Acknowledgments ====================================================================================== Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-10-10 IETF LC End Date: 2007-10-12 Summary: Almost ready Comments: I maintain my concern about the abbrevs in the Abstract even I recognize it is more from the way the nfsv4 stuff is cut out in several documents... There are some places where the wording is not so good (the RFC editor should fix them): - 5 page 6: "buffers, lest an RDMA" - 5 page 7: unbounded -> unbound - 7 page 7: are required by that: thhat -> this and BTW what is the specification, RFC 3530? - 7 page 8: the two "by IANA".