RE: Pre-work item review

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

As a reminder to the RADEXT WG members, please respond either
affirmatively or negatively with respect to each of these documents.
Should the draft(s) become a RADEXT WG Work Item?  {Yes | No}

You may comment on the four IPv6 MIB update documents as one, because
they have highly similar content.

Silence is not generally accepted as WG consensus, so your active reply
is requested.

> As discussed at today's meeting, we are looking to gauge WG interest
in
> making the following documents WG work items:
> 
> RADIUS MIB Revision
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2618bis-00.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2619bis-00.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2620bis-00.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2621bis-00.txt
> 
> RFC 3576 MIBs
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-decnodder-radext-dynauth-clien
t-
> mib-03.txt
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-decnodder-radext-dynauth-serve
r-
> mib-03.txt
> 
> RADIUS Extensions for IEEE 802
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-congdon-radext-ieee802-03.txt
> 
> Please send your comments to the RADEXT mailing list.

--
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/>