[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: APPEAL: Re: Conclusion of RADEXT WG call for consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
If this is a formal appeal to the WG chairs, please formulate it in a
more detailed manner. I recommend that you read RFC 2026, section 6.5,
and especially 6.5.1 and 6.5.4 to start with.
As per 6.5.4:
> All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the
facts of the dispute.
Thanks and Regards,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan DeKok [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 12:04 PM
> To: Klaas Wierenga
> Cc: Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking); Romascanu, Dan (Dan);
> Subject: APPEAL: Re: Conclusion of RADEXT WG call for consensus poll
> for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
> Klaas Wierenga wrote:
> > Is it too much to expect a response to my e-mail? It is not even
> > care *that* much about the issue at hand, but I find the style of
> > communication (or rather the lack thereof) extremely
> I concur.
> I'd like to appeal the decision.
> Alan DeKok.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.