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

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

From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:00:05 -0800
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <45B2A98B-118F-11D8-9A81-000393751598@xythos.com>

On Monday, October 27, 2003, at 01:47  PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> 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.

The issue of supporting "many" quotas on a resource was discussed
and rejected.


>
> 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>).

Perhaps you're still looking at an older version of the draft?
Addressing this issue was the biggest change between -01 and -02.



>
>
> 02-C01 Condition Name
>
> Use name of precondition, not failure description:  
> <quota-not-exceeded/> instead of <storage-quota-reached/>

Does anyone else want to vote on the necessity of this change?


>
>
> 02-C02 allprop marshalling
>
> Change to MUST NOT (to reflect current ACL/DeltaV/Ordering approach).

Could you provide the text?


>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
-brian
briank@xythos.com
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 21:00:13 GMT

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