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

qutoa vs disk space, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:57:15 +0100
Message-ID: <41CC041B.5050102@gmx.de>
To: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
CC: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Brian Korver wrote:
>>> 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.
> ...

Well, the "this-is-already-deployed" point of view hardly is relevant 
here. This spec has been under discussion for over two years now, and 
progress on it has been extremely slow. If being completely compatible 
to the stuff that is already deployed was important, I would have 
expected that more energy would have been invested to actually get the 
spec out of the door.

That being said; there shouldn't be any problem at all migrating 
existing implementations to new terminology/property names. The server 
implementations can continue to support the old properties until the 
relevant clients have been upgraded.

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 24 December 2004 11:57:55 UTC

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