MHD_063: Should MHD defined CapabilityStatement requirements so that a client can determine that the server supports MHD and which MHD server actor?

[JohnMoehrke]

MHD_063: Should MHD defined CapabilityStatement requirements so that a client can determine that the server supports MHD and which MHD server actor? Today we do require servers to support metadata endpoint returning their CapabilityStatment, but do not require it to contain anything specifically. We could first require that the CapabilityStatment.implementationGuide be populated with MHD canonical IG URL. We could additionally require specific .transaction values for DocumentRecipient, and .rest.resource.supportedProfile for DocumentResponder. Might we need an extension in .transaction to be more specific for Document Recipient? Should a DocumentRecipient need to publish that it is capable of receiving a create/update on these .rest resources (which we only defined thru the transaction, not individually REST)? Might we add an extension on CapabilityStatement.implementationGuide to hold the actor name and options?