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: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:27:25 -0800
Message-Id: <F7D4C901-554A-11D9-8831-000A95AACED2@xythos.com>
Cc: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Dec 22, 2004, at 12:27 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

With my author hat on I might agree, but with my  
this-is-already-deployed
hat on I'm voting for leaving the spec as-is.  I haven't exactly noticed
an overwhelming mandate for changing "quota" to something else.


>
>>> 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).

Right, those are the emails.

I agree with Lisa that I don't feel it's worth delaying the draft
over either.  Are you saying that you would object to the draft
moving forward if your suggested change isn't made?


>
> 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
>
-brian
briank@xythos.com
Received on Friday, 24 December 2004 01:28:00 UTC

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