- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: 2003年11月08日 10:22:26 +0100
- To: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3FACB5D2.4020000@gmx.de>
Brian Korver wrote: >> 01-C02 DAV:quota-assigned-bytes >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/ 0425.html> >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/ 0436.html> >> >> The issue here seems to be that an additional property is required to >> make the quota authorable. I honestly haven't understood yet why it's >> needed. The problem seems to be that as the reported quota may be a >> "best pick" by the server (there may be multiple quotas in place, but >> only the most strict will be reported at any point of time). If this >> is the case this could potentially be fixed by exposing all quotas to >> the client. > > > The issue of supporting "many" quotas on a resource was discussed > and rejected. True. This is a simplification that works well as long as the quota is not authorable. If it becomes authorable (by means of this additional property), there's a big issue because the behavior of the server becomes completely unpredictable. >> 01-C03 quota vs disk space >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/ 0439.html> >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/ 0460.html> >> >> The spec says that servers may expose physical disk limits as quota. >> >> a) This is incompatible with NFS from which we're borrowing the >> semantics (it treats disk limits as a separate property, and so >> should we) >> b) Stefan raised interesting usability issue that weren't resolved so >> far (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/ >> 0456.html>). > > > Perhaps you're still looking at an older version of the draft? > Addressing this issue was the biggest change between -01 and -02. Nope. Somewhere on page 3 it says: "Note that there may be a number of distinct but overlapping limits, which may even include physical media limits." (wouldn't it be nice to have section numbers?) >> 02-C01 Condition Name >> >> Use name of precondition, not failure description: >> <quota-not-exceeded/> instead of <storage-quota-reached/> > > > Does anyone else want to vote on the necessity of this change? Please. >> 02-C02 allprop marshalling >> >> Change to MUST NOT (to reflect current ACL/DeltaV/Ordering approach). > > > Could you provide the text? Change: None of these properties need be returned in a <DAV:allprop> request though the server may include them. However, these property names MUST be returned in a <DAV:propname> request for a resource that supports the properties, except in the case of infinite limits which are explained below. to "A DAV:allprop PROPFIND request SHOULD NOT return any of the properties defined by this document." (or just refer to RFC3253, section 3.11) Regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Saturday, 8 November 2003 04:27:53 UTC