Re: [Netconf] capability exchange

[Martin Bjorklund <mbj at tail-f.com>]

Phil Shafer <phil at juniper.net> wrote:
> 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?

I am not convinced that it should be encouraged.  Or rather, I believe
that for most capabilities it will not be necessary.  For example, why
should a client advertise any of the capabilities in 4741?  They just
add rpcs that a client can send.  If the client doesn't understand
:url, it will never send an rpc with a url.


/martin