RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

["Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <wdec@cisco.com>]

Bernard,

 

this thread directly stems from the minutes of the meeting. On behalf of the draft authors I proposed a way forward and in relation to this I have asked you (as chair) repeatedly for some answers/clarifications. Now, given that at the n'th attempt you are still unable to answer them clearly is telling me and other folks that you're quite simply unwilling or unable to carry out your duties as chair of this WG.

 

Thanks,

Woj.

---

From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Sent: 21 November 2009 02:59
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Cc: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

At the Virtual Interim, the RADEXT WG held a session devoted to next steps on the IPv6 access work.  During the session, David Miles suggested a path forward for the IPv6 Access work that appeared to have consensus among the Virtual Interim attendees. 

 

In order to confirm that consensus, the RADEXT WG has issued a Consensus Call to the mailing list (see   http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00636.html).   Please feel free to express your opinions on the list relating to the consensus that was reached at the Interim.   

 

From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:03 AM
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Draft RADEXT Virtual Interim Minutes

 

Trying for the 4th time now:

 

- could you confirm that what my mail outlined in terms of moving forward is also your expectation? 

- Are you now convinced of "interest"? (and if not, or partially, then on what grounds?)

- could you point out (summarise)the issues that were not addressed?

 

Thanks,

Woj.