Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:14:37 -0400

Since user-based quota systems are common in existing repositories,
I'm not sure what you are suggesting we wait for.

Also, I agree with the suggestion that we not use the term "bytes"
in the property names.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:57 PM
To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

That's a fine idea, but there's nothing necessarily tying the
current-user-quota stuff into the directory quota draft.  I generally
prefer to write drafts only once implementation is well understood --
one's assumptions tend to have been confirmed or destroyed by then.  Is
it reasonable to wait until somebody wants to implement user-quota to
standardize it?

lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:40 PM
To: Webdav WG
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

Possibly we should have two pairs of standard properties:
DAV:quota
DAV:quota-used
DAV:current-user-quota
DAV:current-user-quota-used
(analogous to the way the ACL draft as current-user privileges)
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:00 PM
To: Brian Korver
Cc: Webdav WG
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

Brian,
> From: Brian Korver [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:56 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Webdav WG
> Subject: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 10:05 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > This kind of quota system is incompatible with the quota system in a
> > Unix
> > filesystem (where AFAIK it's per user) -- a standard proposal must
be
> > able
> > to handle these kinds of systems as well.
>
> In BSD anyhow, quotas are applied to users and/or groups.  That said,
> "collection quotas" (if we can even call them that) are generally
enforced
> by mounting appropriately-sized partitions.  Just FYI.
Interesting. So if we take groups into account, we'll need a more
flexible
reporting mechanism, right?
Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:11:40 -0700

All I'm suggesting we wait for is somebody who's willing to do the work
to think through user-based quotas, and has the motivation because they
want to implement it, and finally because a client/server pair need to
interoperate with user-based quota information.  (Note: when I did early
thinking about quota, we assumed we wanted user-based quota.  That
assumption was destroyed when we really thought about different usage
scenarios)

For the suggestion not to use 'bytes': I'm ok with 'octets' (is there a
difference important enough to make the change? ) but I reject the
suggestion that it should be an unmeasured unit. It's useless to know
that the quota is 33 frobnitzes and 18 frobnitzes have been used up if
you want to have some hint if you can upload a 1.5 Mb file.

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:00 PM
To: Brian Korver
Cc: Webdav WG
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt
Brian,
be
enforced

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 23:27:07 +0200

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:12 PM
> To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'WebDAV (E-mail)'

If everybody says that user quotas are required, and your proposal can't
adequately handle this, this should be resolved by

- either working on the proposal until it is flexible enough or

- acknowledging that it is *not* generic enough and to publish it as what it
is -- the description of one particular quota implementation (in which case
it shouldn't be "the" WebDAV quota protocol).

> difference important enough to make the change? ) but I reject the

Byte size is whatever the machine/CPU/architecture happens to use. An Octet
is 8 bits. A Byte MAY be 8 bits.

---

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:27:36 -0700

> difference important enough to make the change? )

I think the use of octets comes from prior WGs discussing email, where there
was a significant difference between 7-bit and 8-bit bytes. "octet" made it
clear you were talking about 8-bits.

- Jim

---

From: Elias <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:10:48 -0700

Hello,

I feel pretty strongly that the units should be defined as bytes. This 
is a widely accepted standard unit of measure when talking about disk 
space used/available. If the unit is left undefined, the vast majority 
of servers would use some denomination of bytes as their unit of measure 
anyway, whether that be individual bytes, Kb, Mb, etc. Allowing this 
flexibility doesn't buy us much, just more unit conversions.

Furthermore, writing a generic client to support multiple units (on 
different server implementations) would rapidly become an exercise in 
finding out what unit the server was using. This would, in turn, require 
either another round trip or, more likely, the introduction of a new 
header value, thus unnecessarily raising the complexity of the world...

Elias

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> [...] For the suggestion not to use 'bytes': I'm ok with 'octets' (is there a