RE: : ISSUE, SIP, authentication parameters

Glen,

>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?

Since 3 WGLCs have ended & the draft has been submitted, I am
suggesting we continue discussing this, but 'file' it, 'consider'
it (or what ever term you are happy with) as an IETF LC issue.
Is handling it this way anyhow problematic?

John