"Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: > Some of the discussions in the working group earlier (not formally > captured in the archtiecture, and not clarified in discussion) were of > the form > "If the operator wants to shoot himself in the foot, I2RS' job is to > let him." > If that is the model that the working group is assuming, then I am not > sure that consistency / validity enforcement is desired. > > I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. I believe at least > some people saw the omission of such checks as a path to improvd > transaction rates.
Yes, semantic constraints means additional processing on the server. How much is implementation dependent, and obviously dependent on the constraint (must ../foo; is cheaper than must //*[contains(., "a")]). If the WG is moving towards a solution where the ephemeral I2RS data is explicitly modelled, you can simply choose to not put semantic constraints into the model in most cases (and explain what the implementation is supposed to do with seemingly invalid data). /martin _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
