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: Eric Sedlar <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:15:07 -0700
Message-ID: <009201c27ad9$43827430$51ab2382@us.oracle.com>
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>

I don't think it makes sense to force user quotas into another draft, given
that
they accomplish the same thing.

You can't complain about not having implementations of the draft--there's
always
a chicken & egg problem here.  If you make the draft more generally
applicable,
you will get more implementations, and I don't see why an interoperable
client
needs to care about why the current user has a space limit.

Note that a given user may have different quotas in different collections.

--Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>
To: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>; "'Webdav WG'"
<w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:56 PM
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 17:15:00 GMT

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