Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call

[Gerald Ash <[e-mail]>]

A couple of comments and requests:
 
1. IMO after 8 years of hard work on NSIS, the WG deserves more of an explanation for downgrading GIST to experimental than “the IESG was deadlocked”.  What is the *technical* explanation for why the IESG DISCUSS’s could not be resolved?  After several years of IESG review, the main DISCUSS issue still appears to be how to detect GIST packets: RAO is unacceptable (although it did pass an earlier IESG review); port/magick is a “non starter”.  There is no proposed resolution offered in any of the DISCUSS comments.  Is there no acceptable way (to the IESG) to detect GIST packets?  We are not privy to the discussion that must have taken place.
 
Request: Perhaps an IESG member could write a “majority opinion” to explain to the NSIS WG why this DISCUSS issue (and any others) could not be resolved.
 
2. A couple of IESG comments cast doubt on the need/motivation for NSIS.  The NSIS BOF was held at IETF-50 (March 2001).  Several comments made at the BOF (documented at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01mar/index.html, search “nsis”) identify the perceived need for improvement in signaling protocols.  Bob Braden published an I-D proposing the 2-layer NSIS architecture at http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-braden-2level-signal-arch-01.txt (his CSTP became GIST).  An analysis of existing signaling protocols was published in RFC 4094 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4094.txt.   Surely much has changed over 8 years and problems may have been fixed and needs vanished thus nullifying the original motivation?
 
Request: Perhaps people with a long view could comment on the evolution of problems/needs over this 8 year period.
 
Thanks,
Jerry


--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Martin Stiemerling <[e-mail]> wrote:

From: Martin Stiemerling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call
To: "NSIS" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 8:37 AM

[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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------



[e-mail]

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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis