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

Re: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt, was: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:27:48 +0100
Message-ID: <41C9D8C4.6060105@gmx.de>
To: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
CC: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Brian Korver wrote:
> Julian,
> 
> Thanks again for the very thorough read of the draft.  I'll get
> an -05 out very soon that incorporates the fixes.
> 
> Comments in-line....
> 
> -brian
> briank@xythos.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 1, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> Brian,
>>
>> thanks for the new draft; getting rid of the authorability part  
>> greatly simplifies the spec.
>>
>> Below are my updated comments.
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Issues with draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.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.
> 
> 
> You've suggested a re-write in the past and I haven't seen
> any consensus that a re-write is necessary, especially at
> this late stage.  This is a short spec, so let's just clean
> up the typos and move it along.

Well, all I can say is that I feel the spec would benefit from that 
rewrite; and I have offered assistance to do that. However, it sounds a 
bit strange to first ignore the suggestion for over a year, only then to 
state that it's too late to make that change.

>> 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 an  
>> amount-of-work issue.
>>
>>
>> 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>
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003OctDec/ 0184.html>
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003OctDec/ 0193.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)
>>
>> Update -04: this still appears in the text, but is less critical now  
>> that authorability of the quota is gone. I'd still like to see the  
>> working group make an explicit decision to keep this, because it's  
>> IMHO clearly outside the scope of this spec (I'd prefer separate  
>> properties).
> 
> 
> This was discussed on the list in the past, with no clear consensus  except
> that you and I agree to disagree on this.  Someone suggested that the
> problem was with using the term "quota" at all, but there wasn't any
> consensus that we should change that either.

I'd say the working group needs to make an explicit decision whether 
disk limits are in-scope or not. If they are in, we're using the wrong 
terminology here and we should fix that.

>> 02-C01 Condition Name
>>
>> Use name of precondition, not failure description:  
>> <quota-not-exceeded/> instead of <storage-quota-reached/>.
> 
> 
> There was no clear consensus when I asked for a show of hands on the  list
> on whether this change was desired/required.

I can't recall you asking; but I'm sure you can point to a message in 
the mailing list archive?

Anyway, *I* recall that you agreed to change it 
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/0107.html>) 
and the only disagreement came from Lisa (in 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/0109.html>, 
but she said she didn't want to delay the draft because of that).

That being said: you are re-using terminology and syntax from RFC3253 in 
a slighty incompatible way. Thus, I think it's reasonable to ask *you* 
to show that there is consensus for introducing this inconsistency.

 > ...

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2004 20:28:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:51 UTC