Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04
review-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2019-02-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-02-19
Requested 2019-02-05
Authors David Noveck, Chuck Lever
Draft last updated 2019-02-25
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Sean Turner
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by √Čric Vyncke
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Brian Carpenter
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter
State Completed
Review review-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2019-02-25
Reviewed rev. 04
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2019-02-25

Review
review-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2019-02-25

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04

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
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2019-02-26
IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-19
IESG Telechat date: 2019-03-07

Summary: Ready
--------

Comments: 
---------

I was assigned this review very late, so I have not had time to
review any technical details.

This document is a very major patch to be applied to RFC5661.
It is apparently very carefully written with full details of which
text in 5661 is changed, but even checking that aspect for correctness
would be a major task, which I did not attempt. To be precise, it's
a 106 page patch to a 617 page document. I assume that the WG made
a conscious decision to do this rather than attempt RFC5661bis.

I was a little disappointed not to see an Implementation Status
section per BCP205. The writeup says "This document was a result
of implementation and deployment experience" but it would increase
this reviewer's confidence level if there were a few more details.