Re: [Extra] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-extra-quota-05

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

AD review time!

Generally, should RFC 3501 references that are used as the main IMAP
reference be replaced by RFC 9051?  (Congratulations, by the way!)

I note the comment in the shepherd writeup about the downward reference to
something with Experimental status.  Would you like to change the status of
that document before processing this one, or did you have something else in
mind?

I note the last paragraph of Section 2.  Is what this document describes
backward compatible with implementations of RFC 2087?

Section 3.1.1 uses the term "quota root" before it's defined later.  I
suggest a forward reference, or perhaps (although this is more work) a bit
of a reordering.

Section 3.1.2 has a "must" that should probably be a "MUST".

Section 3.2 refers to this document as a "memo" but everywhere else it's a
"document".  I suggest changing this to match.

In Section 4.1.4, if the server opts to provide the cheaper calculation by
summing the RFC822.size of all deleted messages, is it appropriate to
indicate to the client that this is an estimate and not a calculation?
i.e., does it need to know?

The description of STORAGE in Section 5.1 doesn't make it clear that you're
getting two values, and specifically what they are.  It reads like you only
get one.  Or have I misunderstood something?

In Section 9, the third paragraph refers to "the IMAP quota resource type
registry established above", but it's not actually established until two
paragraphs later.  Also, while it's certainly not necessary, I would
suggest putting each requested IANA action in its own subsection.
Similarly the batch of registrations in Section 9.1 could be better
separated.

Also in Section 9, BCP 26 states that for Specification Required
registries, a designated expert will be appointed, and thus this document
should provide some general review advice or guidance to that expert for
this registry being created.  That seems to be missing here.

-MSK


On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 6:45 AM Bron Gondwana via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Bron Gondwana has requested publication of draft-ietf-extra-quota-05 as
> Proposed Standard on behalf of the EXTRA working group.
>
> Please verify the document's state at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-quota/
>
>
>