On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> Which of the 3 issues pointed in the conclusion you don't agree with and why
> {1. limited validation expression flexibility, 2. higher validation
> workload, 3. broken NACM}? Difficult to not agree with 2. And 1 is
> predetermined from the fact of the reduced entropy attributed to a
> non-presence container - namely its existence now is determined by the
> existence of its parent (which reduces flexibility in a very certain way).
Can someone explain to me what exactly breaks NACM? An example would
help me.
/js (as contributor)
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
