Subject: [Extra] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-quota-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 05:58:17 -0700

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-quota-07: Discuss

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/blog/handling-iesg-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-extra-quota/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

DOWNREF [RFC5257] from this Proposed Standard to Experimental RFC5257, which
the IESG needs to approve on the telechat. (No action for the authors.) I'll
note that the ballot write-up suggests a status-change for RFC5257, in case an
ART AD feels inclined to take this on.

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

Section 13.1. , paragraph 1, comment:
>    [ABNF]     Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, Ed., "Augmented BNF for
>               Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 5234, January 2008,
>               <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc5234.txt>.

Please use https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234 as the URL.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Section 2. , paragraph 8, nit:
-    dependant, it was impossible for a client implementation to determine
-          ^
+    dependent, it was impossible for a client implementation to determine
+          ^

Section 3.2. , paragraph 4, nit:
-    calculate usage, or apply quotas, on arbitary mailboxes or mailbox
+    calculate usage, or apply quotas, on arbitrary mailboxes or mailbox
+                                              +

Section 3.2. , paragraph 5, nit:
-    Not all resources may be limitable or calculatable for all quota
-                                                 --
+    Not all resources may be limitable or calculable for all quota

Section 3.2. , paragraph 5, nit:
-    quota limit in an implementation dependant way, if the granularity of
-                                    ^      ^
+    quota limit in an implementation-dependent way, if the granularity of
+                                    ^      ^

Reference [RFC3501] to RFC3501, which was obsoleted by RFC9051 (this may be on
purpose).

Found non-HTTP URLs in the document:
 * ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc5234.txt

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:
 * http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:25:17 -0700

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-quota/

I asked about this during AD Evaluation.  The working group's response is
that for now they simply want to note the downref and have us process it as
usual.  I don't have any context regarding whether we should add it to the
downref list or simply approve it as a one-off; perhaps the WG could
clarify on that point.

-MSK

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 19:07:41 +0100

Hi Lars,

Thank you for the comments.

I thought calling out DOWNREFs in IETF LCs was sufficient in the past. 
Has the process changed?
  [snip]
> Reference [RFC3501] to RFC3501, which was obsoleted by RFC9051 (this may be on

This is on purpose.

I addressed other comments in my copy.

Best Regards,

Alexey

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 21:03:05 +0100

On 12/10/2021 18:25, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:58 AM Lars Eggert via Datatracker 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Please refer to
>     https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
>     <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/>
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-quota/>
>
>
>
> I asked about this during AD Evaluation.  The working group's response 
> is that for now they simply want to note the downref and have us 
> process it as usual.  I don't have any context regarding whether we 
> should add it to the downref list or simply approve it as a one-off; 
> perhaps the WG could clarify on that point.

Personal opinion: I think a one-off exception is fine in this case.

Best Regards,

Alexey