Re: [Jmap] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-quotas-10: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hello Lars,

Sorry for the late response and thank you for the review and feedback!

I added the missing reference and fixed most of the nits as it made sense to me, in the latest version 11 of the draft.

+ Missing reference fix: https://github.com/jmapio/jmap/pull/376/commits/b614c4be11002229fea0ba4ef59c95a4f58a8679

+ Nits: https://github.com/jmapio/jmap/pull/376/commits/c8e92af7624d56cd7ab1ecec54358069e55e14f7

Best regards,

Rene.

On Dec 12, 2022 7:40 PM, from Lars Eggert Via Datatracker Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-jmap-quotas-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jmap-quotas/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-jmap-quotas-10

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/oAEgfTC3LDk7eMWyNgtNlOTv8oE).
I have not seen a public response to his review of -06?

## Comments

### Missing references

No reference entries found for: `[RFC9110]`.

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term `he`; alternatives might be `they`, `them`, `their`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4, paragraph 16
```
softLimit" (if present and different than null) and the "limit". * softLimit
                                     ^^^^
```
Did you mean "different from"? "Different than" is often considered colloquial
style.

#### Section 4, paragraph 19
```
warnLimit" (if present and different than null) but lower than the "limit".
                                     ^^^^
```
Did you mean "different from"? "Different than" is often considered colloquial
style.

#### Section 4, paragraph 21
```
 "String|null" Arbitrary free, human readable, description of this quota. It
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled with a hyphen.

#### Section 4, paragraph 23
```
ull. Since "used" frequently changes but other properties are generally only
                                    ^^^^
```
Use a comma before "but" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool