[lmap] /capabilities/task* vs /capabilities/tasks/task*

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

While implementing the /capabilities, I discovered that we do not have
a node representing the whole task list in the capabilities branch,
i.e., the tasks all appear right below /capabilities. I think it would
be simpler and more consistent with all other lists we have if we
would have a have tasks appear below /capabilities/tasks. (It would
also make sense to move /capabilities before any configuration
branches.)

It is also a bit unclear how capability tasks and configured tasks
work together. Right now, I can set the program property on both.
Would it not be more natural to have the program set only on the
capability and a configured task can only reference a capability task?
Right now the behaviour is not really clear; I can try to configure a
task to run any program, which is likely not what we want. Perhaps the
idea is that I can only configure a program listed in the capability
tasks. Perhaps we should instead have a way to reference a capability
task from a task configuration (and if the reference can't be
resolved, the referencing task (and any other indirect references to
the referencing task) would not be applied config. Well, what we have
may be possible to implement in a reasonable way, even though the
details may be not entirely obvious.

/js

PS: I do not really know where the chairs think we are with the LMAP
    documents in their lifecycle. I have implemented what I described
    in the first paragraph in my sources, see the diff here:

    http://www.beadg.de/lmap/draft-ietf-lmap-yang-10-from-09.diff.html

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>