--- 1/draft-ietf-extra-quota-06.txt 2021-09-24 11:13:16.380790739 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-extra-quota-07.txt 2021-09-24 11:13:16.420791748 -0700 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ Network Working Group A. Melnikov Internet-Draft Isode -Obsoletes: 2087 (if approved) 27 August 2021 +Obsoletes: 2087 (if approved) 24 September 2021 Intended status: Standards Track -Expires: 28 February 2022 +Expires: 28 March 2022 IMAP QUOTA Extension - draft-ietf-extra-quota-06 + draft-ietf-extra-quota-07 Abstract The QUOTA extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol (RFC 3501/RFC 9051) permits administrative limits on resource usage (quotas) to be manipulated through the IMAP protocol. This document obsoletes RFC 2087, but attempts to remain backwards compatible whenever possible. @@ -25,21 +25,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 February 2022. + This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 March 2022. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights @@ -79,28 +79,28 @@ 4.2.1. QUOTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.2. QUOTAROOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3. Response Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.1. OVERQUOTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Resource Type Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1. STORAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2. MESSAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3. MAILBOX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4. ANNOTATION-STORAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Interaction with IMAP ACL extension (RFC 4314) . . . . . . . 13 - 7. Formal syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 7. Formal syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.1. Changes/additions to the IMAP4 capabilities registry . . 16 - 9.2. IMAP quota resource type registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 9.2. IMAP quota resource type registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.3. Registrations of IMAP Quota Resource Types . . . . . . . 17 - 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12. Changes since RFC 2087 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1. Document Conventions In protocol examples, this document uses a prefix of "C: " to denote lines sent by the client to the server, and "S: " for lines sent by @@ -118,21 +118,21 @@ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Other capitalised words are IMAP keywords [RFC3501][RFC9051] or keywords from this document. 2. Introduction and Overview - This document defines a couple of extension to the Internet Message + This document defines a couple of extensions to the Internet Message Access Protocol [RFC3501] for querying and manipulating administrative limits on resource usage (quotas). This extension is compatible with both IMAP4rev1 [RFC3501] and IMAP4rev2 [RFC9051]. The capability "QUOTA", denotes a RFC2087 [RFC2087] compliant server. Some responses and response codes defined in this document are not present in such servers (see Section 12 for more details), and clients MUST NOT rely on their presence in the absence of any capability beginning with "QUOTA=". @@ -506,21 +506,21 @@ Example 3: C: A003 COPY 2:4 MEETING S: * NO [OVERQUOTA] Soft quota has been exceeded S: A003 OK [COPYUID 38505 304,319:320 3956:3958] COPY command completed 5. Resource Type Definitions The following resource types are defined in this memo. A server supporting a resource type MUST advertise this as a CAPABILITY with a name consisting of the resource name prefixed by "QUOTA=RES-". A - server MAY support mupltiple resource types, and MUST advertise all + server MAY support multiple resource types, and MUST advertise all resource types it supports. 5.1. STORAGE The physical space estimate, in units of 1024 octets, of the mailboxes governed by the quota root. This MAY not be the same as the sum of the RFC822.SIZE of the messages. Some implementations MAY include metadata sizes for the messages and mailboxes, other implementations MAY store messages in such a way that the physical space used is smaller, for example due to use of compression. @@ -592,20 +592,30 @@ +-------------------+-+-+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+-----+ | GETQUOTAROOT | |*| | | | | | | | | | * | +-------------------+-+-+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+-----+ | SETQUOTA | | | | | | | | | | + | | | +-------------------+-+-+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+-----+ Table 1 See Section 4 of RFC 4314 for conventions used in this table. + Legend: + + + - The right is required + * - Only one of the rights marked with * is required + + "Any" - at least one of the "l", "r", "i", "k", "x", "a" rights is + required + + "Non" - no rights required to perform the command + 7. Formal syntax The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation as specified in [ABNF]. Non-terminals referenced but not defined below are as defined by IMAP4 [RFC3501]. Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case- insensitive. The use of upper or lower case characters to define @@ -805,21 +815,21 @@ Change Controller: IESG Description: The number of mailboxes governed by the quota root. Extra required IMAP commands/responses: N/A Extra optional IMAP commands/responses: N/A Reference: Section 5.3 of RFCXXXX - Name of the quota resource type: + Name of the quota resource type: ANNOTATION-STORAGE Author: Alexey Melnikov Change Controller: IESG Description: The maximum size of all annotations [RFC5257], in units of 1024 octets, associated with all messages in the mailboxes governed by the quota root. Extra required IMAP commands/responses: N/A @@ -828,35 +838,35 @@ Reference: Section 5.4 of RFCXXXX 10. Contributors Dave Cridland wrote lots of text in an earlier draft that became the basis for this document. 11. Acknowledgments - Editors of this document would like to thank the following people who + Editor of this document would like to thank the following people who provided useful comments or participated in discussions that lead to - this update to RFC 2087: John Myers, Cyrus Daboo, Lyndon Nerenberg + this update to RFC 2087: John Myers, Cyrus Daboo, Lyndon Nerenberg. This document is a revision of RFC 2087. It borrows a lot of text from RFC 2087. Thus work of the RFC 2087 author John Myers is appreciated. 12. Changes since RFC 2087 - This document is a revision of RFC 2087. It tries to clarify meaning - of different terms used by RFC 2087. It also provides more examples, - gives guidance on allowed server behaviour, defines IANA registry for - quota resource types and provides initial registrations for 3 of - them. + This document is a revision of RFC 2087. It tries to clarify the + meaning of different terms used by RFC 2087. It also provides more + examples, gives guidance on allowed server behaviour, defines IANA + registry for quota resource types and provides initial registrations + for 4 of them. When compared with RFC 2087, this document defines two more commonly used resource type, adds optional OVERQUOTA response code and defines two extra STATUS data items ("DELETED" and "DELETED-STORAGE") that must be implemented. For extensibility quota usage and quota limits are now 63 bit unsigned integers. 13. References 13.1. Normative References