W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:11:40 -0700
To: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'WebDAV \(E-mail\)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001e01c27ad8$c8ebb3d0$620afea9@xythoslap>

All I'm suggesting we wait for is somebody who's willing to do the work
to think through user-based quotas, and has the motivation because they
want to implement it, and finally because a client/server pair need to
interoperate with user-based quota information.  (Note: when I did early
thinking about quota, we assumed we wanted user-based quota.  That
assumption was destroyed when we really thought about different usage
scenarios)

For the suggestion not to use 'bytes': I'm ok with 'octets' (is there a
difference important enough to make the change? ) but I reject the
suggestion that it should be an unmeasured unit. It's useless to know
that the quota is 33 frobnitzes and 18 frobnitzes have been used up if
you want to have some hint if you can upload a 1.5 Mb file.

Lisa


-----Original Message-----
From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@rational.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:15 PM
To: WebDAV (E-mail)
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

Since user-based quota systems are common in existing repositories,
I'm not sure what you are suggesting we wait for.
Also, I agree with the suggestion that we not use the term "bytes"
in the property names.
Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:57 PM
To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

That's a fine idea, but there's nothing necessarily tying the
current-user-quota stuff into the directory quota draft.  I generally
prefer to write drafts only once implementation is well understood --
one's assumptions tend to have been confirmed or destroyed by then.  Is
it reasonable to wait until somebody wants to implement user-quota to
standardize it?
lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@rational.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:40 PM
To: Webdav WG
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt
Possibly we should have two pairs of standard properties:
DAV:quota
DAV:quota-used
DAV:current-user-quota
DAV:current-user-quota-used
(analogous to the way the ACL draft as current-user privileges)
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:00 PM
To: Brian Korver
Cc: Webdav WG
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt
Brian,
> From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:56 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Webdav WG
> Subject: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 10:05 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > This kind of quota system is incompatible with the quota system in a
> > Unix
> > filesystem (where AFAIK it's per user) -- a standard proposal must
be
> > able
> > to handle these kinds of systems as well.
>
> In BSD anyhow, quotas are applied to users and/or groups.  That said,
> "collection quotas" (if we can even call them that) are generally
enforced
> by mounting appropriately-sized partitions.  Just FYI.
Interesting. So if we take groups into account, we'll need a more
flexible
reporting mechanism, right?
Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 17:11:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT