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

[Alice Russo <[e-mail]>]

René,

Received. Thank you for resending your mail with the revised XML file.

Will get back to you today.

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>