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

[Alice Russo <[e-mail]>]

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>