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

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

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:31:12 -0700
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Message-ID: <BEECB820.40E8B%fluffy@cisco.com>

I'm trying to summarize the two things you would prefer to see changed. Tell
me am I getting this right?

1) The document REQUIRES the attributes that report the used and remaining
bytes of quota space to exist on collections but makes them optional on
other resources. Some WG members feel it would be better to required on all
resources but are OK with how it is written now.
2) In 2518, if a Dav server that had a disk full situations, the server
would return a 507. Now with quota there are two reasons a 507 could happen,
a disk full (as before) or a quota exceeded. The quota exceeded is a very
similar but slightly different error. To enable a client to display an error
message to a human user to differentiate these two things, a server that had
a disk full error would return a 507 with a DeltaV style error body that
indicated the disk was full. Is your issue that a) this should not be
defined in the quota document b) you don't think we should do this at all
and the DeltaV error for a disk full should be the same as the response for
quota exceeded? In trying to summarize the issues I realized I did not
understand what you were concerned with and more specifically exactly what
you would propose we change to fix the concern.

Thanks, Cullen

On 6/16/05 11:24 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> 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 Sunday, 3 July 2005 04:31:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:32 UTC