I agree with the appendix for deferred work and I agree with the intro for the not deferred work.
Regards, /gww
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 14:11
> To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: should we add a deferred feature list to the prot I-D?
>
> 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/>