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: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:17:55 -0700
Message-Id: <EEC1749A-01E4-11D9-918D-000A95AACED2@xythos.com>
Cc: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Sep 8, 2004, at 3:07 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Brian Korver wrote:
>>> RFC3530, section 5.10:
>>>          Note that there may be a number of distinct but overlapping
>>>          sets of files or directories for which a quota_used value is
>>>          maintained (e.g., "all files with a given owner", "all files
>>>          with a given group owner", etc.).
>>>          The server is at liberty to choose any of those sets but 
>>> should
>>>          do so in a repeatable way.  The rule may be configured per-
>>>          filesystem or may be "choose the set with the smallest 
>>> quota".
>>> So no, this doesn't apply to disk limits - disk limits are *not* 
>>> quotas.
> >
>> The text says otherwise: The server can choose whatever set of
>> resources it wants to compute quota.  It puts no restrictions
>> on that.  Period.
> Brian, this is a paragraph from a section that talks about quota and 
> nothing else, so of course it talks only about quota.

Precisely, and it states the server can choose how it computes
quota.  Again, not only does the spec place no restrictions on
how the server chooses to compute quota, it explicitly states
there are no restrictions.

>> That all sounds good, but you ascribe properties to NFS that it
>> doesn't have (ex: compatible with [all] existing quota systems).
> Ok. Which one is it incompatible with?

I thought you said it wasn't compatible with authorable quota
systems....  ;-)

>> ...
> Best regards, Julian
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 22:18:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:30 UTC