RE: APPEAL: Re: Conclusion of RADEXT WG call for consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Hi Alan, 

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,

Dan 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@deployingradius.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 12:04 PM
> To: Klaas Wierenga
> Cc: Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking); Romascanu, Dan (Dan);
> 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org'
> 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
that
> I
> > care *that* much about the issue at hand, but I find the style of
> > communication (or rather the lack thereof) extremely
> disappointing.....
> 
>   I concur.
> 
>   I'd like to appeal the decision.
> 
>   Alan DeKok.

--
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/>