JMAP for Quotas
draft-ietf-jmap-quotas-12

# 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".

Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Marco Tiloca for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/dllCjcMbjCLERqfYEX2CIEwhfzU/ , and to the author for addressing Marco's comments.

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.

# 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

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?

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 https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jmap-quotas-10.txt

Regards

-éric