I agree with Julian's comments. In particular, I would also prefer
that the two changes Julian suggest below be made, but like Julian, would
not lie in the road to make sure they get made (:-).
Cheers,
Geoff
w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 06/16/2005 02:24:18 PM:
>
> Cullen Jennings wrote:
> >
> > I would like to start working group last call
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-quota-07.txt
> >
> > This WGCL will end on June 27th so please have your comments emailed
to this
> > list before then.
> >
> > Thank you, Cullen
>
> Hi,
>
> we (greenbytes, currently contracting for SAP), do not intend to
> implement the QUOTA spec any time soon, but we do feel that the spec is
> stable and mature, and it is suited as an interoperable base for a set
> of differing quota implementations.
>
> Some more thoughts:
>
> - The spec started as a description of a very specific quota
> implementation, which wasn't directly implementable for other quota
> systems such as the Unix one; as far as I can tell, this problem has
> been resolved.
>
> - The spec still contains a somewehat arbitrary optimization for a
> specific type of implementation (requiring live properties on
> collections but not on it's members). I'd prefer that one to be removed,
> simplifying the spec a bit more, but unless others feel the same way, we
> should probably leave things as they are (WG dicussion back in
>
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0322.html>)
>
> - The spec currently suggests that disk limits to be marshalled as
> quotas. I'm not sure this is a good idea (for instance, Unix handles
> those very differently), but again I'm not planning to lie down in the
> road because of it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julian
>