- From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:06:51 -0700
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Geoff, I agree. And I agree with Julian that the "quota" model in the spec associates quota with resources, not users, which makes it inherently incompatible with the Unix model. But I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the spec should be changed to associate quota with users. That would be unDAVlike, unNFSlike, etc. Of course, someone could unreasonably argue that position.... ;-) -brian briank@xythos.com On Sep 3, 2004, at 2:31 PM, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > 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 22:07:23 UTC