Skip to main content

JMAP for Quotas


Murray Kucherawy

No Objection

Robert Wilton
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
(Alvaro Retana)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

Murray Kucherawy
Paul Wouters
(was Discuss) Yes
Comment (2023-02-02 for -11) Sent
Thanks for resolving my DISCUSS items!
Erik Kline
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-08 for -10) Sent
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-jmap-quotas-10
CC @ekline

## Comments

### S6

* "to receive notifications" -> "to allow clients to receive notifications"

  Who/what is receiving the notifications seemed unclear to me. It read to
  me as though the server should support push so that the server could
  receive updates.  My assumption from a scan of 8620 S7 is that clients
  receive pushes.

## Nits

### S4.2

* "they judge changing frequently"

  Perhaps either "they judge to be changing frequently" or
  "they judge change frequently".
Francesca Palombini
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-13 for -10) Not sent
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Marco Tiloca for his ART ART review: , and to the author for addressing Marco's comments.
John Scudder
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-14 for -10) Sent
Thanks for this document. Also thanks to the shepherd, Born Gondwana, for the clear and useful writeup.

One request, please expand "JMAP" in the Abstract.
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-12 for -10) Sent
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-jmap-quotas-10

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
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 for background and more

 * 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, 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

#### 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

#### 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].

Robert Wilton
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-12 for -10) Sent
Thank you to Wes Hardaker for the SECDIR review.

** Section 4.  
      The name of the quota object.  Useful for managing quotas and
      using queries for searching.

Is there a standardized way in which this name is assigned.  The examples are suggesting it is the associated email address  - when scope=”account”?

** Section 4.  dataTypes. Where do the permitted values for dataTypes come from?  Are these values standardized?

** Section 4.  warnLimit and softLimit.  What does a null value mean for these fields?

** Section 4.1.

   Standard "/get" method as described in [RFC8620] section 5.1.  The
   _ids_ argument may be "null" to fetch all Quotas of the account at
   once, as demonstrated in this document at Section 5.1.

When “null” is used, would this return every account for which there is authorization?

** Section 5.1.  
     "list": [{
       "id": "2a06df0d-9865-4e74-a92f-74dcc814270e",
       "resourceType": "count",
       "used": 1056,
       "warnLimit": 1600,
       "softLimit": 1800,
       "limit": 2000,
       "id": "3b06df0e-3761-4s74-a92f-74dcc963501x",
       "resourceType": "octets",

I appreciate that this is an example.  Is it realistic in today’s email ecosystem for email quotas to be as low as 2000 bytes?
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-12 for -10) Sent
Thanks for the work done in this document.

I trust the responsible AD to ensure that the missing reference to RFC 9110 will be fixed before publication, see


Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -10) Not sent