- From: John Hall <johnhall@evergo.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:32:15 -0700
- To: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'DeltaV'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Works for me. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 2:22 PM > To: DeltaV > Subject: RE: Removing a resource: A compromise that satisfies? > > > I agree with Lisa's argument that some servers will want to > implement quota services. I just want to keep the quota > services and policies orthogonal from the versioning services. > > So how about the following: I just delete the non-normative > text concerning version deletion from the "how to remove a > resource from version control" sentence. This then allows > Lisa's servers to do all the version deletion it wants > without violating anything in the protocol. > > (Just goes to show you how much trouble you can get into from > an apparently innocuous "explanation" added to the text of > the protocol ... although this is nothing compared to the > "move is a copy followed by a delete" debacle :-). > > Cheers, > Geoff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:00 PM > To: Jim Whitehead; DeltaV > Subject: RE: Removing a resource: A compromise that satisfies? > > > > Jim said: > > John, Lisa: Let me note that one of the foundations of your > argument > > in favor of this capability is an indirect appeal to > authority, namely > > the authority of your users/customers. Now, you almost certainly > > cannot (or don't want to) reveal the market research that > led to your > > position. But, let me note that when you (or anyone else on > the list) > > make this kind of argument, you have a responsibility to > ensure that > > you have, in fact done due diligence when reflecting your > customer's > > requirements. > > I thought it would be more informative to say that customers > wanted it, rather than to say that Xythos developers thought > it would be "a good idea". An appeal to (customer) authority > can be an even stronger argument than simply personal > experience or educated guesses, particularly in this case > where Geoff asked for "use cases". Who can do a better job > of providing use cases than the customer? But I accept the > due diligence point. > > Let me give a use case that's entirely non-opaque, where I > can give full details, and where the due-diligence is automatic. > > The site www.sharemation.com uses quotas. We couldn't afford > to run this free service without quotas, and note that usage > numbers count both regular resources and stored versions. We > also couldn't run this quota-based service without allowing > users to free up their quotas. > > So here's the problem scenario on Sharemation: user 'scrooge' > turns on versioning on /~scrooge/foo.txt through the UI or > through a hypothetical DeltaV client. Then Scrooge uses Web > Folders one day to delete a bunch of stuff. Web Folders > issues a plain DELETE, possibly even issuing DELETE on entire > collections. Once Web Folders' DELETE is issued, Scrooge > would have no way of finding or cleaning out old versions or > version history resources that still are counted under his > quota. Scrooge's quota would soon be unusable. > > This use case applies to any situation where quotas are > needed. Just a few: > - A university provides web storage and collaboration space > to its students and professors. It limits this space > (quotas) in order to discourage improper use. > - A ISP offers web site hosting to its customers, on a > fee-based service. Customers pay for their quota. > - XDrive, IDrive etc. - all these free hosting services > (some of which supported Web Folders) restricted quota. > > Lisa > >
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 18:32:16 UTC