I'm inclined to agree with Julian. A working group standard should be compatible with common industry models, unless those models are inherently incompatible. So an informational RFC seems more appropriate unless that compatibility is achieved. Cheers, Geoff Julian wrote on 09/03/2004 12:39:25 PM: > > Brian Korver wrote: > > > Anyone who is going to support this use case should speak up > > because if no one wants to support your proposed use case then > > the issue is moot. > > So you're saying that the fact that the protocol as specified is > incompatible with both the NTFS and Unix quota model is moot? > > As far as I can tell, the spec as currently published is optimized for > one very specific implementation. That's fine, unless people want to > make it *the* quota protocol with backing of the WebDAV working group. > > Please either simplify the protocol in a way so that other > implementations become possible (moving too specific features into > private extensions), or publish what you have as Informational RFC > describing what one specific system is supporting today. > > Best regards, Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >
Received on Friday, 3 September 2004 21:32:27 UTC