Subject: [NSIS] GIST

From: "John Adams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:53:12 +0100

All,

Just for information,

I thank you for the slot at the NSIS meeting, to present the work at the ITU
on Flow State Aware signalling.

As part of the discussions, I agreed, and it will be a pleasure, to compare
the work you have done on GIST with the work going on in the ITU. I will
comment on this asap.

Dr John Adams

Phone           +44 1394 272 713

Fax                 +44 1394 670 312

Mobile          +44 7912 057 198

s716997612_1190251_4599

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
To: NSIS <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 April, 2009 1:37:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call

[writing as co-chair]

Dear all,

GIST has now been under IESG review and discussion since mid/end of 2006.
GIST was returned to the WG before the IETF#68 meeting in Prague (before
March 2007). Three partially different IESGs have reviewed and discussed
GIST. 

Since then GIST has been under discussion and several DISCUSSES have been
resolved apart from the general doubt whether GIST as such is mature enough
for standards track. This doubt seems to be still there, even with the new
IESG members. 

GIST has gone a long road in the IESG and still is not considered suitable
for standards track. Magnus described the two possible ways in this
situation:
- downgrading GIST to experimental or 
- invoking the alternative procedure.

Downgrading is a hard step, especially after all the good work of the
authors and the WG, the successful interops, the early expert review, and so
on. BUT GIST as such will be still published as RFC. Calling for alternative
procedure will eventually prolong the way of GIST to RFC status for an even
longer time, with even more burden to the working group (considering a
refusal of the IESG). As the WG will not only be in charge of finalizing
GIST (and the other documents), but also be subject to a charter review.

However, in the full spirit of progressing NSIS to RFC status and not to
abolish all the excellent work of the past, the decision to go for
experimental looks natural in the light of the dead lock. 

Remember, that GIST is only the first document out of the whole series that
is still to come (e.g., QoS NSLP, NATFW NSLP, QSPEC, etc).

Please note, that downgrading to experimental, also likely applies to the
NSLPs.

Please let the WG know your opinion about that!

  Martin 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Magnus Westerlund
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:59 PM
> To: NSIS
> Cc: IESG
> Subject: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call
> 
> At today's IESG call we discussed the status of GIST and path forward.
> 
> It was clear that IESG is still dead locked on this document about its
> intended status. We polled all the IESG members and it is clear that
> publication as experimental status is acceptable for all, including the
> ones that are currently abstaining. After discussion I was left with a
> choice between invoking the alternative procedure (See bottom of
> http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/voting-procedures.txt) and publication
> as the experimental. Please note that one of result of the alternative
> procedure if that fails is a charter review. Based on these choices and
> the information I have, I have chosen to go with downgrading GIST to
> Experimental status. I think that is the least disruptive choice I can
> make currently.
> 
> I request that the WG resolves the discusses and submits a new draft
> version with an updated intended status. As usual discusses are for
> discussion and I hope can be resolved reasonably quickly with the
> discussing ADs.
> 
> I am personally sorry that it has taken until now to come to any
> conclusion on the status question.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

[email-masked]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London
W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis