>> 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. K.
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
