[AFS3-std] Fwd: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization and Independent Submissions

[Douglas E. Engert]

Our first draft is moving through the IETF Independent Submission Process=
,
and is now waiting for the author.

As far as I know, the two other reviewers have not sent in their reviews.
and it would be good have have all the reviews in before submitting a new=
 draft.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization  and Independent Submissions
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:15:07 -0700
From: Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
Organization: Independent Stream
To: Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com>
CC: ISE <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,  "D=
ouglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>


Hi Derrick:

Henry Hotz has sent me the appended review of your draft, so I've changed
its state to ISR-AUTH.  Would you please consider his comments, and publi=
sh
a new revision that addresses them.

I'm still waiting for reviews from Simon Wilkinson and Jeff Altman, I'll
prod them now!

Cheers, Nevil


On 08/01/2011 06:21 PM, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> I've looked at<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brashear-afs3-pts-exten=
ded-names-09>  and it is generally fine per-se as to content.
>
> What I see as significant problems are historical artifacts of the stan=
dardization process.  This document updates a protocol that does not have=
 a pre-existing standard description.  Consequently, there are a number o=
f things which are referenced, but not defined.
>
> The biggie is the Rx protocol itself.  The standard reference for that =
is Ed Zayas' "AFS-3 Programmer=92s Reference: Specification for the Rx Re=
mote Procedure Call Facility", Version 1.2 of 28 August 1991.  I don't kn=
ow if that should be a normative or informative reference.  I'm inclined =
to say informative since it isn't a standards document and wasn't even re=
ally binding on Transarc when they put it out.
>
> That document appears to define everything which I had marked as needin=
g definition when I read the draft.
>
> The following comments are just nits:
>
> An informative reference to "AFS-3 Programmer=92s Reference: Architectu=
ral Overview" might also be useful, but not necessary.  (It's referenced =
by the Rx doc anyway.)
>
> Section 6 makes no mention of how an entity is authenticated.  Not sure=
 it needs to, but I felt funny about it.
>
> The sentence "It is expected. . ." near the top of page 6 seems unclear=
 to me.  More generally the language concerning how names are to be compa=
red stays strictly to what the GSSAPI standards say.  Speaking from exper=
ience people violate the "MUST NOT" because they need to deal with case-f=
olding caused by Microsoft Active Directory.  I wish I had some standards=
-confoming procedure which also worked with AD without deployment convent=
ions or other presumptions, but I don't.  Absent such a thing I can't sug=
gest (or even ask for) changes, but I could wish for some language that b=
etter reflected practical necessity.
>
> The PrCapabilities line near the top of page 7 should be indented one m=
ore level.
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Henry:
>>
>> It's been about three weeks since you volunteered to review
>> the draft: draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names
>>
>> Can you estimate when you'll be able to send me the review,
>> please?
>>
>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>>
>> On 9/05/11 12:26 PM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>>> Nevil:
>>>
>>> Both Simon and I will do so.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Jeffrey Altman
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/8/2011 6:45 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Douglas:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you've defined 'independent reviewer' correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Two reviews would be enough, that would be Henry (not involved
>>>> in AFS3 efforts) and one other - Simon and Jeff, could you please
>>>> decide which of you will do it? (Of course, if you'd both like to,
>>>> that would be fine too).
>>>>
>>>> Here's the note I usually send to prospective reviewers:
>>>>
>>>>    "would you be prepared to do a more detailed review, with two
>>>>     parts:
>>>>      a) Comments for the Authors
>>>>           Reasons for rejection or suggestions for improvements.
>>>>           These will be returned to authors (or you may wish to have
>>>>           email discussions directly with authors).  Could they also
>>>>           be published on the Independent Submissions web site,
>>>>           either as public reviews or as anonymous reviews?
>>>>      b) Comments for the Independent Submissions Editor
>>>>          These are advice to the ISE, and will not be published."
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>> --
>> Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
> not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
> Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
>
>
>


--=20
Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org