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

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:39:51 -0400

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 12:56:38 -0700

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: 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,
> 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: "Eric Sedlar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:12:38 -0700

RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txtI don't see what's wrong with the existing properties.  Basically what they tell you is:  if I want to PUT resources into this particular collection (either directly, or indirectly in some subcollection), here's how much space the currently authenticated user can take up.  You may not be allowed (for security reasons) to see how much quota other people are using, so the only number it makes sense to report is how much space is available for me.

All we need to do is loosen up the language of the draft a bit, not change the properties or implementation.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Clemm, Geoff 
  To: Webdav WG 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:39 PM
  Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

  DAV:quota 
  DAV:quota-used 

  DAV:current-user-quota 

  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, 

  Julian

---

From: "Eric Sedlar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:15:07 -0700

I don't think it makes sense to force user quotas into another draft, given
that
they accomplish the same thing.

You can't complain about not having implementations of the draft--there's
always
a chicken & egg problem here.  If you make the draft more generally
applicable,
you will get more implementations, and I don't see why an interoperable
client
needs to care about why the current user has a space limit.

Note that a given user may have different quotas in different collections.

--Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <[email-masked]>; "'Webdav WG'"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:56 PM
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:32:56 -0700

But we *do* have implementations -- Xythos WebFile Server and Apple
iDisk both implement quota with WebDAV properties to expose the values.
This implementation experience, and the desire to have interoperability
between the clients and servers from these two implementers, led to the
writing of the draft.  

Thus, the draft is fairly reliably known to work for 
 - the Sharemation model, where every user is given a quota tied to
their home directory but they can assign sub-quotas to sub-directories
if they want
 - the iDisk model, where every user is given a home directory and a
single top-level quota
 - the WFS corporate customer model, where users put their stuff in
shared directories like 'dev', 'sales', 'hr' -- and so you can *only*
measure quota by directory, not by user.

We always have a temptation to make designs "more generally
applicable".. However sometimes I fear we fall in the trap of making the
designs too extensible, too theoretical, too much like a framework, and
in general too complex to actually reasonable accomplish what are
sometimes modest goals.

Lisa

> From: Eric Sedlar [mailto:[email-masked]]

> a chicken & egg problem here.

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:01:03 +0200

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:33 PM
> To: 'Eric Sedlar'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'

I just did PROPFIND/propname on

	http://idisk.mac.com/interop01/

(doesn't have the properties listed) and on

	http://www.sharemation.com/~(someusername)

(doesn't have them, but does have
{http://www.xythos.com/namespaces/StorageServer}quota).

> between the clients and servers from these two implementers, led to the

Which clients support it then?

> in general too complex to actually reasonable accomplish what are

But then we also sometimes fall into the trap of standardizing too early,
right?

There's nothing wrong in publicly describing a specific extension (actually,
that's very good). But it's a big step from having something that seems to
satisfy one or two server's needs, and a design that is generic enough to be
considered as the generic approach for WebDAV servers.

---

From: Jim Luther <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:04:25 -0700

On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 03:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> (doesn't have the properties listed)

Apple's iDisk and the Mac OS X WebDAV file system implementations were 
complete and in use before this document. They use the properties 
"quota" and "quotaused" and the values returned by those properties are 
in 512-octet units. Connect to iDisk with the Mac OS X client and the 
first PROPFIND you see will ask for and receive those properties.

When Lisa started working on the current draft and it was obvious that 
the values returned should be in the same units used by other parts of 
HTTP (such as Content-Length) instead of 512-byte units, different 
property names were used.

I have no problem with the property names quota-bytes and 
quota-used-bytes being changed to quota-octets and quota-used-octets. I 
agree that octet is the accurate term to use since it's well defined in 
RFC2616, section 2.2.

On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 02:23 PM, Eric Sedlar wrote:

> All I want is for interoperable clients to have two properties:
>
> * how much junk can I store in this collection
> * how much junk have I already stored in this collection (and thus 
> could be
> used if I delete stuff, potentially)
>
> I'm happy with the properties--I just think we need to change the text 
> to
> indicate that the quota only applies to the currently authenticated 
> HTTP
> user--an interoperable client cannot assume that the quota will be the 
> same
> if authenticated as somebody else.  I don't think we need an ability 
> to find
> out how much quota other people have.

That's pretty much what the values returned mean to us and how we use 
them. Since the Mac OS X WebDAV file system mounts a collection as a 
disk volume, we use the quota values to show the user how big of an 
iDisk they have and how much of that space is still available.

Once this group has determined what the new property names are, it'll 
be simple to change the iDisk server to use the new property names (as 
well as the old property names for backwards compatibility with 
existing Mac OS X clients). Once the changes on the iDisk server are 
made, it will also be a simple client change to ask only for the new 
property names.

- Jim

---

From: Stefan Eissing <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:44:08 +0200

Am Mittwoch, 23.10.02, um 21:39 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Clemm, 

> Possibly we should have two pairs of standard properties:

That would be "space-left-on-device" and not a quota. Certainly
every file system has it, but clients are more concerned
with the per-user quotas. Do you see a need to define these
properties?

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 13:55:16 +0100

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim Luther
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:04 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> ...

Just to clarify: I was mentioning this because propfind/propname does not
return any quota-related properties at all. If they are available through
propfind/prop, they must show up using propfind/propname as well.

Julian