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

[Alice Russo <[e-mail]>]

René,

This is a reminder that we await word from you regarding the questions below and this document's readiness for publication as an RFC. The files are here:

  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425.xml (source)

Diff files of all changes from the approved Internet-Draft:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425-diff.html 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9425-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9425

Thank you.
RFC Editor/ar

> On Jun 2, 2023, at 12:35 PM, [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
>