On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
We are having discussions on capability negotiation in the PANA WG also. I
thought on copying their required functionality here to see if we need this
in OCP. PAA and PAC are the peers.
A)
Pac <-- Paa: i support x,y and z
Pac --> Paa: i would like to use y
B)
Pac --> Paa: enable x
Pac <-- Paa: status (ok, failed)
C)
Pac <-- Paa: you must use y
Pac --> Paa: status (ok, failed)
D)
Pac --> Paa: what do you support?
Pac <-- Paa: i support x,y and z
These are very similar to what the current OCP draft has. These kind
of questions/answers come from the general "negotiation"
definition/meaning. What you posted on the list a few days ago is,
essentially, a _mechanism_ to implement some (or all) of the above:
--> let's use x, y, or z
<-- let's use x OR failure
Specifically, there is virtually no difference between B and C because
"enable" and "use" are pretty much the same verbs in this context.
There is also little difference between A and B because if the "I
support" list is limited to "x", than that option is likely to be
selected/used/enabled. I already asked you a "design" question related
to this little difference: are we negotiating options used by one side
or communication parameters (sued by both sides)? Item D is just a
question of how the dialog is structured.
In short, once you add more specifics to your scheme and answer
already pending questions, we should be able to see wither A-D are
already supported by the mechanism you are working on.
Alex.