On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 07:43:47PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > >> Right, and in both cases, the idea was that <running> contains all > >> data needed for the transformation into <intended>. So a client that > >> wants to do "offline" validation would need the data + the > >> transformation algorithms. But no additional data. > >> > > > > Having to know proprietary transformation algorithms really kills the > > idea of interoperable offline validation. It does not really get any > > worse if transformation algorithms merge in additional definitions. > > > Of the three transform algs under discussion (pruning inactive, merging > system, and expanding templates), only the last may be proprietary and, even > then, nothing is stopping IETF from standardizing one or a few well known > templating mechanisms. >
I doubt that existing implementations will converge to a standard solution (which will take years to define); it seems the window of opportunity for standards in this space is closed. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
