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

[Alice Russo <[e-mail]>]

Correction (because the URLs were reversed in my earlier mail):

Here's more information from the vocabulary reference:
- unordered list: https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#ul
- definition list: https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#dl


> On Jun 12, 2023, at 9:38 PM, Alice Russo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> René,
> 
> Thank you for your reply. The revised files are here (please refresh). Please see the follow-ups below.
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.txt
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.pdf
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.xml
> 
> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425-diff.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425-auth48diff.html
> 
> Regarding reversion to "ResourceType":
> 
>> <!-- [Author] I think, as a data type, ResourceType should stay
>> capitalized? I didn't see a comment on that change and I don't understand it.
>> Allow me to revert back to the original here:
> 
> 
> Is Section 4.1, the property name is 'resourceType' (lowercase 'r'). So, for Section 3.2, title case was not applied when it appeared in the section title.
> However, based on your note, it seems there are two separate concepts as follows:
> - ResourceType, the data type (Section 3.2) 
> - resourceType the property of the quota object (Section 4.1)
> 
> 
> Regarding #6:
>> [Author] I'm less sure on this one. I agree the usage of <strong> is not very consistent.                                   
>> Checking again other JMAP publications, it seems to be the same.                                                            
>> Not being too sure how to treat here exactly, I removed those <strong> elements instead.                                    
>> I don't think they are strictly needed. Let me know if you think otherwise.    
> 
> OK.
> 
>> Also I added <tt> as I was surprised most of my bullet point lists                                                         
>> disappeared. I just tried to add lists like this: 
> [...]
>> Just checked other JMAP RFC documents as I'm not too well versed                                                           
>> with XML formatting, sorry for that. Let me know if those changes                                                           
>> satisfy you. It looks better to me when doing locally xml2rfc to text and html.     
> 
> 
> As you noted, the bullet points were removed due to our change of the XML from <ul> to <dl> for definition list because the items are of the form "term: definition", so definition list seems more accurate semantically. That said, per your preference for the display, it's fine to go with <ul> as shown in the current files.
> 
> Here's more information from the vocabulary reference:
> - unordered list: https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#dl
> - definition list: https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#ul
> 
> 
> Regarding Section 4.1, we have restored this space after the colon. Please let us know if that is not correct.
> 
> The file you sent
>   *  types:String[]
> 
> Current document
>   *  types: String[]
> 
> 
> We will wait to hear from you again before continuing the publication 
> process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9425
> 
> Thank you.
> RFC Editor/ar
> 
>> On Jun 11, 2023, at 7:56 PM, Rene Cordier <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello RFC editor team,
>> 
>> Retrying to send that email with the updated XML file attached. Hope it works.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Rene.
>> 
>> On 07/06/2023 14:25, Rene Cordier wrote:
>>> Hello RFC editor team,
>>> First of all thanks for your work and reviewing this document.
>>> I attached the XML with my modifications. I also kept your [Rfced] comments to which I answered below with a [Author] tag to explain the choices there (I hope it is alright).
>>> I'm having a concern though regarding the diff and formatting. I can see that most of the bullet points disappeared with the diff, and I don't think it should. But maybe my initial XML file wasn't formatted in a correct way? I'm not too well with XML, but I tried something. Let me know if it suits you. Comment left in the attached XML as well with the changes.
>>> Also I noticed a non-commented change to make the data type ResourceType non capitalized (also in section title). I reverted it back and commented on the attached XML. Let me know if it makes sense to you.
>>> Otherwise I'm happy with the rest.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Rene.
>>> On 03/06/2023 02:35, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 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
>> <rfc9425.xml>
> 
>