Closed andrewbonney closed 4 years ago
I missed the early stage of this activity, but this makes good sense in my eyes. Might be handy to know as a controller that something can be realized, but requires extra action.
I personally would prefer urn:x-nmos:cap:meta:enabled
. This might be functionality which can be activated with proprietary control systems etc. and does not imply something offline.
Early in the activity we noted that some Receivers may have offline capabilities which cannot be accessed without out of band configuration. This PR adds a proposal to allow capability sets to be marked as enabled or disabled (with an implicit enable if unspecified). This way offline (or latent) capabilities can be identified by a controller.
It seems important to consider this now as adding this mechanism at a later date could adversely impact controllers which are unaware of the semantics.
One alternative would be to use
urn:x-nmos:cap:meta:offline
as opposed tourn:x-nmos:cap:meta:enabled
.