W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: WGLC draft-ietf-webdav-quota-07

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:32:03 -0400
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Brian Korver <briank@briank.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF434A6356.48E08769-ON85257022.006594C8-85257022.0065CEE1@us.ibm.com>
I agree with Julian's comments.  In particular, I would also prefer
that the two changes Julian suggest below be made, but like Julian, would
not lie in the road to make sure they get made (:-).

Cheers,
Geoff

w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 06/16/2005 02:24:18 PM:

> 
> Cullen Jennings wrote:
> > 
> > I would like to start working group last call
> > 
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-quota-07.txt
> > 
> > This WGCL will end on June 27th so please have your comments emailed 
to this
> > list before then.
> > 
> > Thank you, Cullen
> 
> Hi,
> 
> we (greenbytes, currently contracting for SAP), do not intend to 
> implement the QUOTA spec any time soon, but we do feel that the spec is 
> stable and mature, and it is suited as an interoperable base for a set 
> of differing quota implementations.
> 
> Some more thoughts:
> 
> - The spec started as a description of a very specific quota 
> implementation, which wasn't directly implementable for other quota 
> systems such as the Unix one; as far as I can tell, this problem has 
> been resolved.
> 
> - The spec still contains a somewehat arbitrary optimization for a 
> specific type of implementation (requiring live properties on 
> collections but not on it's members). I'd prefer that one to be removed, 

> simplifying the spec a bit more, but unless others feel the same way, we 

> should probably leave things as they are (WG dicussion back in 
> 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0322.html>)
> 
> - The spec currently suggests that disk limits to be marshalled as 
> quotas. I'm not sure this is a good idea (for instance, Unix handles 
> those very differently), but again I'm not planning to lie down in the 
> road because of it.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Julian
> 
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 18:34:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:08 GMT