Re: [Netconf] capability exchange

[Phil Shafer <phil at juniper.net>]

Martin Bjorklund writes:
>But I don't think 4741 needs to be changed in order to handle this.
>As I wrote above, I think this can be handled on a capability basis -
>i.e. if a particular capability's semantics is dependent on e.g. which
>version of the capability the client implements, then that capability
>can be defined to require that the client advertises it.  There is one
>such capability already - the base capability.

Would it be possible to make this example more explicit somehow
so that it becomes a conscious model which capabilities are
allowed (encouraged?) to follow?

Thanks,
 Phil