[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call
Dear Martin, Dear all
I am very sorry to hear that even with the new IESG members the doubt,
whether GIST as such is mature enough for standards track,
seems to still be there.
From what I understood from the email sent by Magnus, Magnus already chose
to go with
downgrading GIST (and also all NSLPs) to Experimental status.
Taking into account all historical facts associated with the IESG review of
GIST, I think that the choice made
by Magnus is an acceptable one for me.
Best regards,
Georgios
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsis-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling
> Sent: dinsdag 14 april 2009 14:37
> To: NSIS
> 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: nsis-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces at ietf.org]
> 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: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> stiemerling at nw.neclab.eu
>
> 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
> nsis at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
>