RE: : ISSUE, SIP, authentication parameters

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> supposedly scribbled:

> Glen,
> 
>>> I think that if there is support for this issue, we could file it as
>>> an IETF Last Call issue.  However, we would need some support before
>>> accepting the issue.
>> 
>> Your reply implies to me that comments during IETF Last Call are
>> somehow dependant on the approval of management for "filing" and
>> "acceptance".  I wasn't aware that that was the case; have the rules
>> changed?  If not the matter is, I believe rightly, out of your hands.
> 
> "We" being the IETF, or at least the AAA WG.  Not the management.

OK, but again, I was unaware that IETF LC comments were subject to any approval process at all, rather that they can be sent to the IETF list by anyone.  "we" do not file it, Miko files it; if it makes sense to some reasonable portion of the reviewers, the draft gets sent back to the WG for revision.  That's what I _think_ happens anyway, but I am vaguely aware that there have been modifications to the IETF process since the Yokohama meeting (I stopped paying attention when it became clear that said modifications were intended to obfuscate, rather than materially address, the issues that I and others raised there).  Seriously, have things changed?
  
> 
> John

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel