Re: [pcp] Capability discovery

(2012/10/05 22:56), Dan Wing wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:pcp-bounces@ietf.org  [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Yoshihiro Ohba
>> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:04 PM
>> To:pcp@ietf.org
>> 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).

In that case, the problem is specific to side-by-side PANA approach
which does not use PCP opcode/options.  Is this correct?

Yoshihiro Ohba

>> 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
>> pcp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp