Re: Your Appeal to me regarding replacing IPSEC WG Chair(s)

[[e-mail]]

I don't know if this is intentional or not, but your discussion of
the appeal is being cc'd to the ipsec list as well, so whatever you are
planning to tell Bill, consider him told :-).

					Fran Fadden

PS: for what it is worth, I agree with Jeff's (and apparently the
IESG's) position on this.

--------
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 13:27:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Bradner <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Your Appeal to me regarding replacing IPSEC WG Chair(s)
Cc: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

Fred,
	I would claim that we have not received an appeal from Bill.

	The question of the clarity of an appeal cam eup during the
discussion over Dave Perkin's SMI process.  1602bis says that

---
   All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the
   facts of the dispute. 
---

I claim we have not received a specific message from Bill that meets
anything like these requirements.  I ask that we 
	1/ wait for a specific detailed message
	or
	2/ tell Bill that he should create such a letter then wait

I talked to Bill in LA about appeals & the need to be clear and request
specific actions - so he has heard this message

Scott