- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:35:03 +0100
- To: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Brian Korver wrote: > I'm planning to do so in today's meeting, but to restate for the mailing > list, > Stefan pointed out that if we used quota-limit, then quota-limit would > not be > a fixed value (which is the reason we defined things in terms of > quota-limit > to begin with). Thus, instead of quota-limit, the new draft uses NFS's > quota-available. This has the semantics that it isn't fixed. Problem > solved. > Note, quota-available is consistent with the rest of the the quota > definitions > we pulled from NFS, so it's conceptually attractive too. > > I still don't know what you find confusing, so I can't comment on that yet. Brian, you may be right -- I'll have to re-review the change. I'M still not convinced that handling both quota and disk space limits using the same properties is a good idea, especially as NFS does it differently. Minor editorial note: RFC3010 has been obsoleted by a newer revision. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2003 16:35:40 UTC