- From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:10:18 -0800
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 12:38 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Right, RFC3010 doesn't define the term, but it uses the concept. I just > think that it makes sense to give the concept a name: > > The value in bytes which represent the amount of disc space > used by this file or directory and possibly a number of other > similar files or directories, where the set of "similar" meets > at least the criterion that allocating space to any file or > directory in the set will reduce the "quota_avail_hard" of > every other file or directory in the set. > > Note that there may be a number of distinct but overlapping > sets of files or directories for which a quota_used value is > maintained. E.g. "all files with a given owner", "all files > with a given group owner". etc. > > The server is at liberty to choose any of those sets but > should > do so in a repeatable way. The rule may be configured per- > filesystem or may be "choose the set with the smallest quota". > > So basically, a "quota space" is the set of resources that share the > same > quota. I'm not sure how important I think defining "quota space" is, but I'd I'll add it since you think it would be helpful. > > For the record, i'm absolutely in favor to stick with the definitions > from > RFC3010. Why don't we just steal them verbatim, or just refer to 3010? They require minor tweaking, so I think it would be easier to steal them. > > IMHO, > > The value in bytes which represents the amount of additional > disk space that can be allocated to this file or directory > before the user may reasonably be warned. It is understood > that this space may be consumed by allocations to other files > or directories though there is a rule as to which other files > or directories. > > is very clear (we may have to map some terms though). If we stick with > this > language it's also much clearer why the distinction between plain > resources > and collections (and other types) really doesn't make sense at all -- > I'd > prfer the spec not to say anything about that. I agree that it's clear. The problem is that we defined things a little differently from NFS: DAV:quota-limit-bytes is different from NFS's quota_avail_hard, in that DAV:quota-limit-bytes - DAV:quota-used-bytes = quota_avail_hard We talked about doing this because we wanted the "amount free" that is displayed to the user to be what the user expects rather than a value computed by the client, which might not end up as a round number. I think the definition of DAV:quota-limit-bytes (and DAV:quota-assigned-bytes) could be clearer, so any wordsmithing suggestions would be appreciated. > > That didn't come through. Now it reads: > > The value of this property will usually be protected, although a > user with sufficient privileges may be permitted to change the > value. The property is useful even if it is protected. A 403 > Forbidden response is RECOMMENDED for attempts to write a protected > property. > > That sounds as if *usually* the property is read-only. That makes sense. For instance, most users shouldn't be able to change my quota, as I shouldn't be able to change theirs. > > BTW: why do we need an additional property for that? There are several instances where there are 2 numbers for quota. For instance, the quota system given in the example. In the example, the assigned quota for B is 10,000,000 bytes, while the limit is 1,000,000. I'll try to make that clearer in the example. -brian briank@xythos.com
Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 20:10:27 UTC