Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call

[Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com>]

Gerald Ash skrev:
> 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.

I wouldn't place to much focus on the discusses that are currently in
the tracker. They are not the reason for GIST being downgraded to
experimental. I am convinced that we can resolve them.

The reason GIST is being downgraded is that enough IESG members don't
like it being published as proposed standard. When one third or more of
the IESG members ballot abstain the process is to send the document back
to the WG. That happened and lots was done to the document and still
enough IESG members where uncertain. After further discussion and new
IESG members still not resulting an result that is clear to lead to
approval. This showing that the IESG was deadlocked on the document.
Which resulted in the choice I had to make. Downgrade status from
proposed to experimental, where most if not all are fine with publishing
GIST or have the alternative procedure being used. The alternative
procedure is an up or down vote on publication. If more than 2 persons
cast down it is a no. And the IESG has agreed that if that is the result
we should initiate a charter discussion process to see if the community
and IESG agrees with what should be produced by the WG. Thus the result
can be from anything between upholding the current charter, change it,
to kill the WG.

Based on the above choices I did chose Experimental as the least
disrupting and fast way forward.

> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 

The IESG has had quite a lot of discussion around if one needs to
explain an abstain position or not. We are split on this question, but
currently there is no requirement on doing that. I am personally not
happy with this.

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------