Subject: [AAA-WG]: REMINDER: Call for issues on MIP, Base and Transport

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:20:21 -0800 (PST)

As noted at IETF 53, we will be bringing the MIP, Base and Transport
documents to WG last call starting on April 2, 2002; the Last Call will
run until April 16, 2002. 

Since the intent is for this to be the final WG last call for these
documents, this is effectively your last opportunity to read and comment
on them. 

Since we are getting to the part of the IETF ceremony where the Chair says
"speak now, or forever hold your piece", it seemed like a good time to
send one last reminder. 

This means that if you have not read the documents through in their
entirety lately, you owe it to yourself (and the AAA WG) to do so NOW. My
suggestion is that you set aside some time this week for this -- an
uinterrupted period of a few hours, where you can read one or more drafts
completely through and comment on it. Since there won't be a "next time",
if you don't do this, you'll have no basis on which to complain later. 

As usual, we will be following the format for issue submissions laid out
in http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/AAA/issues.html, so that the editors can
process the required changes most efficiently. This means that in
recommending a change, you need to suggest the new text, not just ask the
editor to "fix it". This takes more time for the commentor but greatly
improves the editor's productivity. 

For Editorial issues, you do not need to file a separate issue for each
spelling mistake. Just package the items together in one big "bag
o'nits" and send it off to the mailing list with [issue] in the subject. 

For Technical issues, it is desirable to keep orthogonal issues separate,
so they can be resolved separately, but closely related concerns can be
filed together.

---

From: Greg Weber <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 21:10:52 -0500 (EST)

> run until April 16, 2002. 

A small process observation.  The MIPv4 draft has at least 
a couple of SHOULD references to the CMS draft.  One wonders 
how the IESG will be able to evaluate the former if the 
latter is not yet submitted...

Greg