should we add a deferred feature list to the prot I-D?

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

Hi,

Should we add a small appendix to the NETCONF Configuration
Protocol I-D to briefly discuss the list of features left
for future consideration?  Do we agree on what that list
contains?:

   * user-named configuration databases
   * database subset locking
   * notifications
   * rpc-abort operation

I think we have some text (or should) in the intro that says
the following is out of scope and not deferred work:
   * data definition language
   * data model specifications


Andy



--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>