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 
and the only disagreement came from Lisa (in 
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, 7 January 2015 15:01:31 UTC