Comment 10 for bug 1554869

General idea itself looks good. The idea of using a header to indicate which format is expected looks a good option.

I would like to comment some points if we go to this way.

* As Armando commented, in the current neutron API, the extension list is the only way to expose capabilities supported by neutron-server, so we need to add an extension corresponding to this feature.
* It is better to discuss with API-WG about the header name: Neutron-* or OpenStack-* or Networking-*. The proposal is specific to Neutron, but the same approach may be used for other projects which do not adopt micro-versioning yet.
* If we use the header, the default mode should be legacy when the header is not specified.
* neutronclient implementation should be done along with the server side implementation