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

[Alice Russo <[e-mail]>]

René,

We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9425). We will move this document forward in the publication process.

Re:
> P.S: I feel like my mails don't seem to go through some MLs, like the [e-mail] ML for example. If you know how I can address this matter I would be very grateful as well!

I see what you mean; the 3 mails from you (with the list CCed) are not shown in the archive (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/?q=9425). We've reported this issue to [e-mail].

Thank you.

RFC Editor/ar

> On Jun 14, 2023, at 8:25 PM, Rene Cordier <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Alice,
> 
> A big thank you for your remarks, feedback, and corrections. It has been very helpful and I really appreciate the efforts.
> 
> Quick answers to your last remarks:
> 
> * ResourceType: correct, two different concepts, data type and quota property
> 
> * bullet points: thank you for accepting this back and sorry for the confusion. I'm just trying to be consistent with other JMAP RFCs in terms of formatting and display
> 
> * section 4.1 : thanks for restoring the space after the colon for types parameter. Manual mistake on my part obviously during my edit
> 
> As the author, I'm happy to announce that I am satisfied with this version and approve this RFC for publication.
> 
> Thank you,
> Rene.
> 
> P.S: I feel like my mails don't seem to go through some MLs, like the [e-mail] ML for example. If you know how I can address this matter I would be very grateful as well!
> 
> On 13/06/2023 12:00, Alice Russo wrote:
>> 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>
>>> 
>>> 
>