- From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- Date: 2004年12月23日 17:27:25 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <F7D4C901-554A-11D9-8831-000A95AACED2@xythos.com>
On Dec 22, 2004, at 12:27 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Brian Korver wrote: >> Julian, >> Thanks again for the very thorough read of the draft. I'll get >> an -05 out very soon that incorporates the fixes. >> Comments in-line.... >> -brian >> briank@xythos.com >> On Nov 1, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Brian, >>> >>> thanks for the new draft; getting rid of the authorability part >>> greatly simplifies the spec. >>> >>> Below are my updated comments. >>> >>> Best regards, Julian >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Issues with draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt >>> >>> Content >>> >>> 01-C01 Organization >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/ >>> 0425.html> >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/ >>> 0438.html> >>> >>> I think the draft could greatly benefit by a more clean separation >>> of (a) terminology, (b) protocol (property/error code) definition >>> and (c) examples. >> You've suggested a re-write in the past and I haven't seen >> any consensus that a re-write is necessary, especially at >> this late stage. This is a short spec, so let's just clean >> up the typos and move it along. > > Well, all I can say is that I feel the spec would benefit from that > rewrite; and I have offered assistance to do that. However, it sounds > a bit strange to first ignore the suggestion for over a year, only > then to state that it's too late to make that change. > >>> Proposal for a outline: >>> >>> 1 Introduction/Notation/Terminology >>> 2 Additional live properties >>> 3 Modification to behaviour of existing methods (error marshalling) >>> 4...n Other standard RFC section >>> A (Appendix) Examples of how servers may implement quota >>> >>> I'm happy to help restructuring the document if this is just an >>> amount-of-work issue. >>> >>> >>> 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> >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003OctDec/ >>> 0184.html> >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003OctDec/ >>> 0193.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) >>> >>> Update -04: this still appears in the text, but is less critical now >>> that authorability of the quota is gone. I'd still like to see the >>> working group make an explicit decision to keep this, because it's >>> IMHO clearly outside the scope of this spec (I'd prefer separate >>> properties). >> 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. > >>> 02-C01 Condition Name >>> >>> Use name of precondition, not failure description: >>> <quota-not-exceeded/> instead of <storage-quota-reached/>. >> There was no clear consensus when I asked for a show of hands on the >> list >> on whether this change was desired/required. > > I can't recall you asking; but I'm sure you can point to a message in > the mailing list archive? > > Anyway, *I* recall that you agreed to change it > (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/ > 0107.html>) and the only disagreement came from Lisa (in > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/ > 0109.html>, but she said she didn't want to delay the draft because of > that). Right, those are the emails. I agree with Lisa that I don't feel it's worth delaying the draft over either. Are you saying that you would object to the draft moving forward if your suggested change isn't made? > > That being said: you are re-using terminology and syntax from RFC3253 > in a slighty incompatible way. Thus, I think it's reasonable to ask > *you* to show that there is consensus for introducing this > inconsistency. > > > ... > > Best regards, Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -brian briank@xythos.com
Received on Friday, 24 December 2004 01:28:00 UTC