Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9425 <draft-ietf-jmap-quotas-12> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Greetings,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] FYI, the title of the document has been updated as
follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of 
RFC 7322 (“RFC Style Guide”). Please review.

Original:
JMAP for Quotas

Current:
JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) for Quotas
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please review carefully the instances of "Quota" and "quota"
throughout this document, and let us know if any updates are needed.

Original:
   The term Quota (when capitalized) is used to refer to the data type
   defined in this document in Section 4 and instance of that data type.

Also, please review the updated section titles of 4.1, 5.1, and 5.2. 
We have capitalized 'quota', as typical of title case. Please let us 
know if you prefer otherwise.

Original:
     4.1.  Properties of the quota object  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
[...]
     5.1.  Fetching quotas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Requesting latest quota changes . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

Current:
     4.1.  Properties of the Quota Object
[...]
     5.1.  Fetching Quotas
     5.2.  Requesting Latest Quota Changes
-->


3) <!--[rfced] Why are quotation marks used around "octets" here?
Is this to indicate that the term does not actually refer to octets, 
but instead to the resourceType "octets"?  If it refers to the
number of octets (8 bits), we suggest removing the quotation marks.

Original:
   *  octets: The quota is measured in size (in "octets").  For example,
      a quota can have a limit of 25000 "octets".

Perhaps (if referring to octets in the typical sense):
   octets:  The quota is measured in size (in octets).  For example, a
      quota can have a limit of 25000 octets.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] To clarify "to assign quotas", may we update as follows?”

Original:
      This allows to assign quotas to distinct or shared data
      types.

Perhaps:
      This allows the quotas to be assigned to distinct or shared data
      types.
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] This line exceeded the 72-character limit. FYI, we
have added line breaks as follows; please let us know if you prefer
otherwise. 

Current:
       "description": "Personal account usage. When the soft limit is
                       reached, the user is not allowed to send mails or
		       create contacts and calendar events anymore.",

Also, would you like to add text similar to the following
from RFC 8743 (C.1.1)? If so, please let us know where it should
be placed.

   For compatibility with publishing requirements, line breaks have been
   inserted inside long JSON strings, with the following continuation
   lines indented.  To form the valid JSON example, any line breaks
   inside a string must be replaced with a space and any other white
   space after the line break removed.
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] Please review instances of the following elements in
the XML and let us know any updates are needed. In particular, 
please review usage of <strong> on data type names; it seems 
inconsistent.

Regarding <em>:
In the HTML and PDF outputs, this yields italics font. 
In the TXT output, this yields surrounding underscores.

Regarding <strong>:
In the HTML and PDF outputs, this yields bold font. 
In the TXT output, this yields surrounding asterisks.

Regarding <tt> (which is not currently used in this document):
In the HTML and PDF outputs, this yields fixed-width font.
In the TXT output, this yields no change. (There are no symbols 
added, and clearly there is no font change.)
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt) 
does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us
know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not
set.  
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should 
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/st/ar


On Jun 2, 2023, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/06/02

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425-xmldiff1.html

Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9425

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9425 (draft-ietf-jmap-quotas-12)

Title            : JMAP for Quotas
Author(s)        : R. Cordier
WG Chair(s)      : Bron Gondwana, Jim Fenton
Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini