On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 02:14:49PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 19 Dec 2016, at 13:48, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:37:57AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> > >> I am not proposing to ban candidate or something but IMO it needn't be > >> part of the base NETCONF (or whatever protocol) spec. > >> > > > > Lets recall that candidate is a _capability_. Nobody is required to > > implement it. > > Yes, this is what I wrote. My point is that this capability could/should be > moved out of the NETCONF spec to a separate document. The latter can then be > modified without affecting the former. >
I believe it does not matter where a capability is defined. You can even declare the capability dead by writing a document declaring it dead; this does not require to revise the RFC the capability is defined in. Since the candidate datastore has been in NETCONF since day one and it is out there and apparently used, I do not see a strong reason to move the definition. Those who do not like it simply do not implement it. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
