W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-01.txt

From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:05:17 -0800
Cc: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <CAA7668A-5FE7-11D7-894D-000393751598@xythos.com>

On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 01:00  PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> The reason I raised this is because I feel that a "disk full" indeed 
> is an
> error condition on the server (thus 5xx), but a failed request due to
> exceeded quota limits happens *on purpose* -- the server theoretically
> *could* perform the request, but it doesn't want to.
>
> But as Geoff already stated, this is really not an important issue -- 
> even
> more so if we have well-defined condition names that we can send in 
> error
> response bodies.
>
> I'd prefer to focus the discussion on the other issues I mentioned 
> (such as
> what is the quota model the spec describes, and do we really need to
> describe a specific model at all; or: are physical disk limits a 
> special
> case of quotas? -- RFC3010 distinguishes both).
>
> Julian

Julian,

I was thinking that physical disk limits are just another class of 
"quotas".
That probably isn't clear enough from the spec, and should probably be
stated.

The alternative is to report two numbers, quota-limit and something like
"space-limit", but I think we basically agreed that reporting back one 
number
would be better than multiple numbers (given that the server should know
which of the numbers is the "best" one to represent the space 
constraints
on that server).

-brian
briank@xythos.com
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 19:05:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:03 GMT