Re: [pcp] Capability discovery

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:04 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [pcp] Capability discovery
> 
> There has been a question on what to do when PCP client supports PCP
> authentication
> while PCP server does not, and vise versa.

Yes, that problem needs to be solved.

> The same issue will exist for future PCP extensions.

I disagree that problem exists for PCP extensions.  The client can 
simply try to use the extension, and will either get back an error 
(e.g., UNSUPP_OPCODE or UNSUPP_OPTION error), or the option will
not be included in the response (for options outside the mandatory-
to-process range).

> I would like to hear opinions whether defining a capability discovery
> exchange
> in PCP base specification ever makes sense, where the capability
> discovery exchange is
> expected to happen prior to any other PCP opcodes.

I have not found that capability discovery is necessary.

-d



> Best Regards,
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp