Re: Review of draft-ietf-webdav-quota-02.txt

I believe it is extremely probable that Stefan was using
the word "binding" as it is defined by the WebDAV binding protocol.
So this definition does not implicitly forbid (or say anything about)
soft-links (which are redirect references, not bindings).

WRT to modeling all possible quota models, one always has to 
balance the simplicity of the model with the flexibility of the
model (in the case of the ACL spec, we ended up being directed
to decrease the flexibility in order to increase the simplicity).

How widespread are the examples of repositories that let you bind
(in the binding protocol sense of the term "bind") a resource
into two collections that are in different quota spaces?

Cheers,
Geoff


Brian wrote on 12/12/2003 03:24:28 PM:

> 
> On Dec 12, 2003, at 1:32 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > I agree to your analysis that the current definitions lead to 
> > confusion. The way out
> > is to simplify the underlying model.
> >
> > Definition: a "quota space" is a storage area on the server where 
> > allocation can
> > be restricted. All collections on a server either belong to a 
> > particular quota space
> > or to no quota space at all (in which case storage allocation, if 
> > possible, in such
> > collections cannot be controlled by quotas).
> 
> Finally, the definition of "quota space".
> 
> 
> >
> > Corollary1: all collections of a particular quota space report the 
> > same values for
> > their DAV:quota* properties.
> >
> > Corollary2: all resources belong to the same quota space as their 
> > parent collection(s).
> 
> That was the implicit model of the original spec (when quotas were on
> directories only).  I think this is a good simplification.
> 
> 
> >
> > Corollary3: all collections which may contain bindings to the same 
> > resource do
> > belong to the same quota space. Collections in different quota spaces 
> > cannot
> > have bindings to the same resource.
> 
> I have several problems with this.  First, I believe it implicitly 
> forbids
> soft-link type binding models.  Did you mean here only the binding model
> spelled out in the current binding draft?  Second, it forbids quota 
> models
> that some vendors support (and have customers that find useful).
> 
> 
> >
> > With this model, /A and /A/UploadDirectory will either have the same 
> > DAV:quota*
> > values or totally unrelated ones, depending if the two collections 
> > belong to the
> > same or to different quota spaces. Thus the problem of "it does not 
> > sum up" is
> > avoided. Also, server side implementation can be much simpler, as the 
> > hiearchies
> > (e.g. bindings) of collections and resources do *not* influence the 
> > quota values.
> >
> > //Stefan
> 
> -brian
> briank@xythos.com
>

Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 17:56:33 UTC