RE: RADEXT WG Last Call on "RADIUS Delegated IPv6 Prefix Attribute"

["Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

David,

You as chair(s), slowed down other documents that were ready for last
call a long time ago to wait for completion of the Guideline document.  

So why does one document get to go over another document?  Lets be
evenhanded!!!

Avi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, David
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 2:16 PM
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: RADEXT WG Last Call on "RADIUS Delegated IPv6 
> Prefix Attribute"
> 
> John Schnizlein writes...
> 
> > That does not seem to me to be the (cynical) suggestion.  
> Rather the 
> > suggestion is that it is premature to hold up a last-call WG draft 
> > because it does not comply with an individual draft, not ready for
> last
> > call.
> 
> I think for this particular draft, we have all agreed that 
> the proposed format is acceptable.  Some of the comments in 
> this thread, however, are phrased in such a way as to apply 
> to other documents, not yet in last call.  My comments were 
> intended to draw a distinction between the case for *this* 
> document and various others.
> 
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to 
> radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in 
> a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
> 

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