[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

To: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: should we add a deferred feature list to the prot I-D?
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:26:51 -0800
Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20041122110211.02a64130@fedex.cisco.com> (Andy Bierman's message of "Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:10:31 -0800")
Organization: Sparta
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20041122110211.02a64130@fedex.cisco.com>
User-agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux)

>>>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:10:31 -0800, Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com> said:

Andy> I think we have some text (or should) in the intro that says
Andy> the following is out of scope and not deferred work:

I agree that adding that information (all of it) is a good idea.
However, I don't understand the above statement.  Those two items were
out of scope and certainly were deferred...  Maybe you didn't mean to
put in "not"?

-- 
"In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap,
 and much more difficult to find."  -- Terry Pratchett

--
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/>

References:
- should we add a deferred feature list to the prot I-D?
  - From: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: no netconf-state model needed after all
Next by Date: RE: should we add a deferred feature list to the prot I-D?
Previous by thread: should we add a deferred feature list to the prot I-D?
Next by thread: RE: should we add a deferred feature list to the prot I-D?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread