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

Review of draft-ietf-webdav-quota-02.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:47:02 +0100
Message-ID: <3F9D9256.6080100@gmx.de>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Issues with draft-ietf-webdav-quota-02.txt

Content

01-C01 Organization
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0425.html>
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0438.html>

I think the draft could greatly benefit by a more clean separation of 
(a) terminology, (b) protocol (property/error code) definition and (c) 
examples.

Proposal for a outline:

1 Introduction/Notation/Terminology
2 Additional live properties
3 Modification to behaviour of existing methods (error marshalling)
4...n Other standard RFC section
A (Appendix) Examples of how servers may implement quota

I'm happy to help restructuring the document if this is just a 
amount-of-work issue.


01-C02 DAV:quota-assigned-bytes
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0425.html>
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0436.html>

The issue here seems to be that an additional property is required to 
make the quota authorable. I honestly haven't understood yet why it's 
needed. The problem seems to be that as the reported quota may be a 
"best pick" by the server (there may be multiple quotas in place, but 
only the most strict will be reported at any point of time). If this is 
the case this could potentially be fixed by exposing all quotas to the 
client.

At the end of the day, unless we can agree about how this is supposed to 
work I strongly suggest to leave it out of the base spec and use a 
vendor-specific property for setting it.


01-C03 quota vs disk space
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0439.html>
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0460.html>

The spec says that servers may expose physical disk limits as quota.

a) This is incompatible with NFS from which we're borrowing the 
semantics (it treats disk limits as a separate property, and so should we)
b) Stefan raised interesting usability issue that weren't resolved so 
far 
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0456.html>).


02-C01 Condition Name

Use name of precondition, not failure description: <quota-not-exceeded/> 
instead of <storage-quota-reached/>


02-C02 allprop marshalling

Change to MUST NOT (to reflect current ACL/DeltaV/Ordering approach).



Editorial:

02-E01 non-ASCII characters in draft

02-E02 sample host names do not conform to RFC2606

02-E03 missing section numbers


-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 27 October 2003 16:57:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT