Re: qutoa vs disk space, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt

The WG has already had extensive discussions on the names of the 
properties and I see no compelling reason to change them.

Lisa

On Dec 24, 2004, at 3:57 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Brian Korver wrote:
>>>> This was discussed on the list in the past, with no clear consensus 
>>>>   except
>>>> that you and I agree to disagree on this.  Someone suggested that 
>>>> the
>>>> problem was with using the term "quota" at all, but there wasn't any
>>>> consensus that we should change that either.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd say the working group needs to make an explicit decision whether 
>>>  disk limits are in-scope or not. If they are in, we're using the 
>>> wrong  terminology here and we should fix that.
>> With my author hat on I might agree, but with my  
>> this-is-already-deployed
>> hat on I'm voting for leaving the spec as-is.  I haven't exactly 
>> noticed
>> an overwhelming mandate for changing "quota" to something else.
>> ...
>
> Well, the "this-is-already-deployed" point of view hardly is relevant 
> here. This spec has been under discussion for over two years now, and 
> progress on it has been extremely slow. If being completely compatible 
> to the stuff that is already deployed was important, I would have 
> expected that more energy would have been invested to actually get the 
> spec out of the door.
>
> That being said; there shouldn't be any problem at all migrating 
> existing implementations to new terminology/property names. The server 
> implementations can continue to support the old properties until the 
> relevant clients have been upgraded.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>

Received on Monday, 27 December 2004 21:52:16 UTC