Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> wrote:Martin Bjorklund writes:But can you really write a capability which modifies the schema in rfc4741?If you can't, the protocol isn't extensible. If I came up with a new value for the "operation" attribute, I should be able to define a capability that defines my new operation. I can then advertise that capability and clients that understand it can use it.Agreed. I meant from a IETF / process point of view.
The issue is extension vs. restriction. There is no problem advertising a "clean extension". But let's say (hypothetical) you advertised a capability that said "I do not support the <lock> operation" and you also advertise the netconf-base capability that implies you do support the <lock> operation. That is not allowed in the protocol.
/martin
Andy -- to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>