JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) for Quotas
draft-ietf-jmap-quotas-12

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to Wes for his SECDIR review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-jmap-quotas-07-secdir-lc-hardaker-2022-11-17/
Some of his feedback seems to have already made it into the latest version of the document.

I feel the types of quota limits has an interoperability issue ?

There are three limits: limit, warnLimit and softLimit. First, it would make sense to rename the confusingly named "limit" to hardLimit.

I was puzzled about warnLimit not being the same as softLimit. What other things does softLimit do than warn the user? Well, that is explained below this and turns out to be "whatever the mailserver wants this to be". This is not good for user expectations, unless they would get a detailed description along with the warning what things will get blocked at the softLimit level, as there is no longer a universal concept of what would happen at the softLimit level. The examples in the document do not seem to use the description field for this required user feedback. So when I get a warning from softLimit from Hotmail, this could cause different limitations from when I get a warning from Gmail. But as far as I can tell, the warning appears identical if the softLimit is hit? Or did I miss where custom text can be given to the enduser for such triggers?

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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?

[Ballot 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

[Ballot comment]
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

[Ballot comment]
# 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".

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-jmap-quotas-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the JMAP Capabilities registry on the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jmap/

a single, new capability will be registered as follows:

Capability Name: urn:ietf:params:jmap:quota
Intended Use: common
Change Controller: IETF
Security and Privacy Considerations: [ RFC-to-be; Section 4 ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-11-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: brong@fastmailteam.com, draft-ietf-jmap-quotas@ietf.org, jmap-chairs@ietf.org, jmap@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (JMAP for Quotas) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the JSON Mail Access Protocol WG (jmap)
to consider the following document: - 'JMAP for Quotas'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-11-19. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies a data model for handling quotas on accounts
  with a server using JMAP.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jmap-quotas/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was some redesign, but no roughness.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No there have been no disagreements about the final state of the document.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Linagora have an implementation, Fastmail have done an evaluation and will implement
soon.  Other JMAP implementors have indicated that they intend to support it.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The only other interaction is with the QUOTA extension in EXTRA, and they are
aware of this work and have reviewed it for compatibility.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There were no formal expert reviews required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

There is no YANG.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

I checked the JSON sections of the document by feeding them to `jq` and ensuring
that it agreed that they were valid JSON (after manually removing the ... for
elided additional data)

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, the document is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?



11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is intended to be a Proposed Standard as it extends an existing
Proposed Standard.  It correctly reflects this.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The authors have been contacted directly and are unaware of any IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes there is only one author, who is willing to be listed.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There aren't any issues other than "document 23 days old" which is my fault for
not submitting this earlier.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All the references are normative, and are required to be.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document creates an optional extension to a protocol defined in another RFC.
It doesn't (currently) list that document in the "Updates" section.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA registration looks correct and follows the guidelines for the registry
it is updating.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registrations

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was some redesign, but no roughness.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No there have been no disagreements about the final state of the document.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Linagora have an implementation, Fastmail have done an evaluation and will implement
soon.  Other JMAP implementors have indicated that they intend to support it.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The only other interaction is with the QUOTA extension in EXTRA, and they are
aware of this work and have reviewed it for compatibility.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There were no formal expert reviews required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

There is no YANG.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

I checked the JSON sections of the document by feeding them to `jq` and ensuring
that it agreed that they were valid JSON (after manually removing the ... for
elided additional data)

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, the document is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?



11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is intended to be a Proposed Standard as it extends an existing
Proposed Standard.  It correctly reflects this.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The authors have been contacted directly and are unaware of any IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes there is only one author, who is willing to be listed.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There aren't any issues other than "document 23 days old" which is my fault for
not submitting this earlier.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All the references are normative, and are required to be.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document creates an optional extension to a protocol defined in another RFC.
It doesn't (currently) list that document in the "Updates" section.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA registration looks correct and follows the guidelines for the registry
it is updating.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registrations

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/