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