W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Quota: another DAV:quota-assigned-bytes question

From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 14:42:28 -0700
Message-Id: <D054DE86-0116-11D9-918D-000A95AACED2@xythos.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Sep 4, 2004, at 12:58 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Brian Korver wrote:
>
>> Geoff,
>> I agree.  And I agree with Julian that the "quota" model
>> in the spec associates quota with resources, not users,
>> which makes it inherently incompatible with the Unix model.
>> But I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the
>> spec should be changed to associate quota with users.
>
> Well, we do. Many quota systems work like that; and if this is 
> supposed to become the Quota spec supported by the IETF WebDAV mailing 
> list, it should be compatible with these systems.
>
> Or on the other hand, removing this part of the spec resolves *that* 
> issue, and as far as I can tell, only one single vendor is supporting 
> it anyway. So why not make it a private extension?
>
>> That would be unDAVlike, unNFSlike, etc.  Of course, someone
>> could unreasonably argue that position....  ;-)
>
> I don't get that point. Could you please explain...?

We agreed to follow the NFS model and in fact pulled the
text essentially unchanged from the NFS RFC.

-brian
briank@xythos.com
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 21:43:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT