Gen-ART review: Expand acronyms on first use

Section 2.7, NsdbName definition: expand NSDB to Namespace Database
as this is the first use of the term.

Section 2.12, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: expand NCE (NSDB
Container Entry) as this is the first use of the term.

Section 4.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: probably worth expanding
"DSE" to "DSA-specific entry" here.
Gen-ART review: Spelling and grammar corrections

Section 2.8.1, 2nd sentence: "extention" -> "extension"

Section 2.8.3, 3rd paragraph after bullet items, 1st sentence:
"which" -> "that".  (Yeah, I know, grammar police.)

Section 2.9, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "admininistrative" ->
"administrative"

Section 4.2.1.8, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: bracket "Section 2.8.1"
in "(see" and ")" for readability.

Section 5.1.3.1, 1st paragraph after LDIF definition: "up to date" ->
"up-to-date"

Section 5.1.3.2, 2nd paragraph: "a" -> "an"

Section 5.1.3.2, table entry for "fedfsNfsVarSub": "substituion" ->
"substitution"

Section 8, 1st paragraph (definition of Administrator): "an" -> "a"
Gen-ART review: Make glossary definitions consistent

Section 8, 3rd paragraph (definition of Client): "filesystem
access" -> "file-access" for consistency of usage with the rest of
the document.

Section 8, 5th paragraph (definition of Fileserver): rather than
discussing "a filesystem", should this be "one or more filesystems"?
Or is a fileserver limited to exporting one filesystem?

Section 8, 8th paragraph (definition of Filesystem Access Protocol):
following up on the 3rd paragraph, should this be "File-access
Protocol" for consistency?

This follows up on commit 8cd92fc1 'Use the term "file-access client"
consistently'.
Gen-ART review: LDAP-related corrections

Section 4.2.2: "LDAP Objects" -> "LDAP Object Classes" seems
appropriate.

Section 4.2.2.1, 2nd and 3rd sentences: replace "fedfsFsn" with
"fedfsNsdbContainerInfo"

Section 4.2.2.2, 5th paragraph: how is the prohibition on
referencing other attributes in the fedfsFsn object class supposed
to work if this document is the defining document for that object
class?

Section 5.1.3.1, 1st paragraph after LDIF definition: a port number
of 2049 is given.  Since this is already the default value, why not
use a different value?  Otherwise, there would be no practical need
to include that port number in the FSL creation request.
Gen-ART review: Clarify sections related to Fileset Locations

Section 2.8.3, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: in addition to checking
for added FSL records, shouldn't the fileserver also be checking for
deleted or migrated FSLs?  And why would the fileserver do this at
the expiration of the FSN TTL instead of waiting for the next access
to the that FSN?  Otherwise the fileserver could be generating
unnecessary traffic, although there is a tradeoff to be made vs.
performance.

Section 3.2, item #5: "fs_location" -> "fs_locations"

Section 5.1.4, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: "a Fileset location" ->
"an FSL"

Section 8, 9th paragraph (definition of FSL), 2nd sentence:
"fs_location" -> "fs_locations".
Gen-ART review: Note where draft's title should be inserted

Section 7.3, 2nd paragraph, "Specification" value: presumably this
will be changed to the RFC number when issued?