Re: [netconf] Capability-fetching mechanisms

[Pierre Francois <[e-mail]>]

Kent,

(ii)                I wasn’t sure why you used inet:uri’s for the
> capabilities rather than YANG identities.  I guess that this would be a bit
> more work because it would require both an IANA maintained registry of
> capabilities and also a derived IANA registry of YANG identities that would
> be automatically updated by IANA whenever a new capability is added to the
> registry.  E.g., following the approach for say for iana-routing-types
> YANG Module
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-routing-types/iana-routing-types.xhtml>
>
>
> I’m unsure if the use of identities was ever discussed.  It seems
> reasonable and, if not mistaken, would NOT require an IANA registry of any
> sort…as the identities (on the wire) would be scoped by their modules.
> The only “downside” is the “overhead” introduce for custom (non-standard)
> capabilities, but it doesn’t seem meaningful relative to getting IANA out
> of having to maintain a registry of any kind.
>


Transposing this discussion to our udp-notif, for the sake of consistency,
is the WG considering not to create IANA pools for the protocol code points
defining options and encoding types?
Are we saying NETCONF no longer uses IANA to organize their protocol code
points? I have no strong opinion on this, as our goal as developers is to
have the IETF tell us which values to use for these codes,
but this seems like a radical change of approach compared to what I've been
used to, so I'd like to make sure I understand this is what is going on ;)

Regards,

Pierre.