From Stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu Thu Apr 2 01:54:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881AD3A6856 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 01:54:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.438, BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ie157bCor9MH for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 01:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA5C3A683E for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 01:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775052C01CA0C for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:55:00 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1NRs4fVIFtax for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:55:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from VENUS.office (mx1.office [192.168.24.3]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588382C01C9AB for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:54:55 +0200 (CEST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:54:54 +0200 Message-ID: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FDDBE@VENUS.office> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WGLC for Using and Extending the NSIS Protocol Family (draft-ietf-nsis-ext-02) Thread-Index: AcmzcLEzxMhxp3OTREi2yP/QYrFk/A== From: "Martin Stiemerling" To: Subject: [NSIS] WGLC for Using and Extending the NSIS Protocol Family (draft-ietf-nsis-ext-02) X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:54:00 -0000 Dear all, The draft draft-ietf-nsis-ext-02 seems to be ready for WGLC. We start a WGLC today for two weeks, i.e., until April 17, 2009. Please read the draft and send your comments about it. Comments includes, but are not limited to (just as a reminder): - what's wrong - what's right - stating that the draft ready for sending it to the IESG - stating that the draft is not ready for sending it to the IESG and why = it is not. Martin stiemerling@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=20 From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Thu Apr 2 01:59:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BEEF3A6A9A for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 01:59:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.272 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TrXbxN+TACGp for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 01:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2AF3A6AD3 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 01:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ewi977 (ewi977.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.12.129]) by rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n328xSlr014231; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:59:32 +0200 (MEST) From: "Georgios Karagiannis" To: "'Martin Stiemerling'" , References: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FDDBE@VENUS.office> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:59:24 +0200 Message-ID: <001f01c9b371$550a8940$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FDDBE@VENUS.office> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Thread-Index: AcmzcLEzxMhxp3OTREi2yP/QYrFk/AAAIW/Q X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.5 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]); Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:59:32 +0200 (MEST) Subject: Re: [NSIS] WGLC for Using and Extending the NSIS Protocol Family(draft-ietf-nsis-ext-02) X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:59:37 -0000 Hi all In my opinion the draft draft-ietf-nsis-ext-02 is ready for sending it to the IESG Best regards, Georgios > -----Original Message----- > From: nsis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling > Sent: donderdag 2 april 2009 10:55 > To: nsis@ietf.org > Subject: [NSIS] WGLC for Using and Extending the NSIS > Protocol Family(draft-ietf-nsis-ext-02) > > Dear all, > > The draft draft-ietf-nsis-ext-02 seems to be ready for WGLC. > > We start a WGLC today for two weeks, i.e., until April 17, 2009. > > Please read the draft and send your comments about it. > > Comments includes, but are not limited to (just as a reminder): > - what's wrong > - what's right > - stating that the draft ready for sending it to the IESG > - stating that the draft is not ready for sending it to the > IESG and why it is not. > > Martin > > stiemerling@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@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis > From nvaris@cs.helsinki.fi Thu Apr 2 06:50:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83C73A6C33 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 06:50:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oBXc-J4X-ZwE for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 06:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-1.hut.fi (smtp-1.hut.fi [130.233.228.91]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF553A68E1 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (katosiko.hut.fi [130.233.228.115]) by smtp-1.hut.fi (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n32DpiLQ031550 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:51:44 +0300 Received: from smtp-1.hut.fi ([130.233.228.91]) by localhost (katosiko.hut.fi [130.233.228.115]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 32468-603-8 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:51:44 +0300 (EEST) Received: from pc82.netlab.hut.fi (pc82.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.82]) by smtp-1.hut.fi (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n32DouXa031305 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:50:56 +0300 Message-Id: <2E59A86C-AFBE-4E76-8BF5-EB914AE0A26B@cs.helsinki.fi> From: Nuutti Varis To: nsis@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FDDBE@VENUS.office> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:50:56 +0300 References: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FDDBE@VENUS.office> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-TKK-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.1.2-hutcc at katosiko.hut.fi Subject: Re: [NSIS] WGLC for Using and Extending the NSIS Protocol Family (draft-ietf-nsis-ext-02) X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:50:46 -0000 Read the draft, comments below. Overall, there are some issues that I feel should be resolved in the draft (see comments below). Also note that I skipped the parts that I am not familiar with, i.e. the Qos and NAT/FW NSLP parts of the draft. General: It seems to me that there are various terms used when talking about NSIS related entities, for example: For the NSIS framework as a whole, we have: "NSIS", "NSIS suite", "NSIS protocol suite", "protocol suite", "NSIS framework", "NSIS protocols" For the signaling application layer, we have : "signaling layer", "application layer", "signaling application layer", "NSLP layer", "service layer" And for the transport layer, we have: "transport layer", "NTLP (GIST) layer", "GIST layer" Finding some coherency between the three separate entities might be a good idea, as people new to the NSIS world may not be able to instantly recognize varied terms relating to the same entity. Other things: Page 4,5: Second paragraph has a long sentence: "While GIST is only concerned with transporting NSLP messages hop-by-hop between pairs of signalling nodes, the end-to-end signaling functionality is provided by the NSLP protocols if needed - not all NSLP protocols need to perform end-to-end signaling, even the current protocols have features to confine the signaling to a limited path." also, "Two NSLP protocols are currently standardized: ..." -> "Two NSLP applications are currently being standardized ..."? Page 5, second paragraph: The paragraph first talks about "NSIS capable nodes", but then drops the capable later on. Should this be added in to make it clear that we are still talking about the NSIS capable nodes, or is it clear without the distinction? Page 5, third paragraph: "Unlike RSVP, signaling is normally ..." -> "Unlike RSVP, NSIS signaling is normally ..."? Page 6, chapter 3, first paragraph: "Applications can indicate the desired reliability, ..." Should that use "transport attributes" instead of "reliability", something like: "Applications can indicate the desired transport attributes for the signaling flow, which causes GIST to select the appropriate transport protocol(s) for the flow. By default, GIST specifies UDP for unreliable, TCP for reliable and TLS on top of TCP for secure (and reliable) signaling flows." Page 8, second paragraph: "When an NSLP application wants to send a message to its next peer ..." -> "When an NSLP application wants to send a message towards a flow endpoint"? Page 9, second paragraph: s/recognised/recognized/ (whereas other places there are "standardized" "authorized" and so on) Page 10, bullet 2: "GIST reuses already established signaling relationships and messaging associations to peers if the signaling flows traverse the same next signaling hop." What does the "already established signaling relationships" mean in this multiplexing context? As far as I understand, GIST only multiplexes messaging associations between signaling flows that traverse between the same peers. Page 10, bullet 6: Should it be clarified here that the MTU restriction (and thus, the GIST message size restriction) only affects unreliable signaling flows? Also, the automatic elevation to a reliable flow can not be originated from the responding node. Page 13, Chapter 6.1, first paragraph: "However, the removal of dependence on RAO makes it more likely that NSIS Query packets can be forwarded through nodes that are not NSIS aware." -> s/NSIS Query/GIST Query/ Page 15, first paragraph: "GIST infrastructure" -> "NSIS infrastructure" Page 15, third paragraph: "Nodes that do not (yet) support the application will forward it without complaint ..." -> "Nodes that do not (yet) support the application will forward it's signaling messages without complaint ..." Page 20, chapter 8.6 "Designing a new NSLP is both challenging and easy." .. Some reasoning here would be good as to why? Page 21, bullet 2: "GIST-NSLP API" is referenced earlier as a "service layer API", which may not be obvious to someone new to NSIS that they mean the same thing. Page 21, bullet 5: "... is the source of the signaling flow, or an intermediate node on the signaling." -> "... is the source of the signaling flow, or an intermediate node on the signaling path."? On Apr 2, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote: > Dear all, > > The draft draft-ietf-nsis-ext-02 seems to be ready for WGLC. > > We start a WGLC today for two weeks, i.e., until April 17, 2009. > > Please read the draft and send your comments about it. > > Comments includes, but are not limited to (just as a reminder): > - what's wrong > - what's right > - stating that the draft ready for sending it to the IESG > - stating that the draft is not ready for sending it to the IESG and > why it is not. > > Martin > > stiemerling@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@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis > BR, Nuutti From magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Fri Apr 3 04:35:14 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF37D3A68DE for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:35:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.172 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SLTfEGE8a-1w for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (mailgw3.ericsson.se [193.180.251.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56543A698F for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id CBBFB20874; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:36:14 +0200 (CEST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-ab6e8bb000003b08-21-49d5f4aed679 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 9CD3820E05; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:36:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:35:40 +0200 Received: from [147.214.183.173] ([147.214.183.173]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:35:40 +0200 Message-ID: <49D5F48C.4050208@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:35:40 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Stiemerling References: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FDDBE@VENUS.office> In-Reply-To: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FDDBE@VENUS.office> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2009 11:35:40.0727 (UTC) FILETIME=[5111BC70:01C9B450] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: nsis@ietf.org Subject: Re: [NSIS] WGLC for Using and Extending the NSIS Protocol Family (draft-ietf-nsis-ext-02) X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:35:15 -0000 Hi, I have reviewed the document and have some comments. 1. First of all I wonder if all the WG history really need to be in this document. I don't see a purpose for it in most cases. 2. The introduction could be more explicit about the purpose of this document. 3. I think the topic of RAO could be a bit more clear about the issues with deploying it, due to adminstrative filtering at domain borders etc. Also the suggestions that RAO might be used, should probably informatively reference the draft for RAO with NSIS. In addition be clear on that this is likely only for limited deployements. 4. Section 6.1. Are you really certain that there will be need for hardware replacement to implement GIST with UDP port filtering to capture query packets. It seems that on a number of platforms this is likely not needed. So I think a balanced view here that it might, or might not be needed depending on the actual hardware in place is the right message. 5. I think especially section 8 could use some work on the layout. The text is very dense. I do understand why bullets are used, but I think forcing some line breaks between them could make it more readable. Cheers Magnus Martin Stiemerling skrev: > Dear all, > > The draft draft-ietf-nsis-ext-02 seems to be ready for WGLC. > > We start a WGLC today for two weeks, i.e., until April 17, 2009. > > Please read the draft and send your comments about it. > > Comments includes, but are not limited to (just as a reminder): > - what's wrong > - what's right > - stating that the draft ready for sending it to the IESG > - stating that the draft is not ready for sending it to the IESG and why it is not. > > Martin > > stiemerling@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@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis > -- 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@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Thu Apr 9 10:58:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41743A696C; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:58:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.18 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fC6z+V3LMQVV; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C633A67EB; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 8812B211D4; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:59:06 +0200 (CEST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ad822bb0000024d5-3d-49de376adad5 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 6BBE32102F; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:59:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:59:06 +0200 Received: from [147.214.183.173] ([147.214.183.173]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:59:06 +0200 Message-ID: <49DE376A.5080508@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:59:06 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NSIS X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2009 17:59:06.0071 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFCD2670:01C9B93C] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: IESG Subject: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:58:01 -0000 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@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From Stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu Tue Apr 14 05:36:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840813A6DE7 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:36:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.413, BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XrXHmcV92Sgb for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABCB3A6DDA for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293472C000305; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:37:29 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RzwpsKTJF2sZ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:37:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from VENUS.office (mx1.office [192.168.24.3]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1DB12C0004DA; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:37:18 +0200 (CEST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:37:20 +0200 Message-ID: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FE626@VENUS.office> In-Reply-To: <49DE376A.5080508@ericsson.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call Thread-Index: Acm5PO9Lt7iOkTJqSKew7O+BOv5A0wDtZpsQ References: <49DE376A.5080508@ericsson.com> From: "Martin Stiemerling" To: "NSIS" Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:36:19 -0000 [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.=20 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.=20 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=20 - 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.=20 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=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: nsis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces@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 >=20 > At today's IESG call we discussed the status of GIST and path forward. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > I am personally sorry that it has taken until now to come to any > conclusion on the status question. >=20 > Best Regards >=20 > Magnus Westerlund >=20 > IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > F=E4r=F6gatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- stiemerling@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 From john@razoom.com Tue Apr 14 05:52:05 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758343A6DD7 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:52:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WS41D3g4kb8g for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2061E3A67F9 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26520 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2009 12:53:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (86.138.96.131) by smtpauth11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.33) with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2009 12:53:13 -0000 From: "John Adams" To: "'Martin Stiemerling'" , "'NSIS'" Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:53:12 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c9bcff$f9501ff0$ebf05fd0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C9BD08.5B1487F0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acm8//fdM3RtyozbS9iCmAPPIQrXJw== Content-Language: en-gb X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:59:52 -0700 Subject: [NSIS] GIST X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:52:05 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C9BD08.5B1487F0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0002_01C9BD08.5B1487F0" ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C9BD08.5B1487F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All, =20 Just for information, =20 I thank you for the slot at the NSIS meeting, to present the work at the = ITU on Flow State Aware signalling. =20 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. =20 =20 Dr John Adams =20 Phone +44 1394 272 713 Fax +44 1394 670 312 =20 Mobile +44 7912 057 198 =20 s716997612_1190251_4599 =20 =20 From: Martin Stiemerling To: NSIS 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.=20 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.=20 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=20 - 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.=20 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=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: nsis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces@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 >=20 > At today's IESG call we discussed the status of GIST and path forward. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > I am personally sorry that it has taken until now to come to any > conclusion on the status question. >=20 > Best Regards >=20 > Magnus Westerlund >=20 > IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > F=E4r=F6gatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- stiemerling@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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C9BD08.5B1487F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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        &n= bsp;  +44 1394 272 713

Fax        &nbs= p;        +44 1394 670 312

 

Mobile        &= nbsp; +44 7912 057 198

 

3D"s716997612_1190251_4599"

 

 

From:= Martin = Stiemerling <Stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu>
To: NSIS <nsis@ietf.org>
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: nsis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces@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@ericsson= .com
> = ----------------------------------------------------------------------


stiemerling@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@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

 

 

------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C9BD08.5B1487F0-- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C9BD08.5B1487F0 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image001.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD//gA7Q1JFQVRPUjogZ2QtanBlZyB2MS4wICh1c2luZyBJSkcg SlBFRyB2NjIpLCBxdWFsaXR5ID0gODUK/9sAQwAFAwQEBAMFBAQEBQUFBgcMCAcHBwcPCwsJDBEP EhIRDxERExYcFxMUGhURERghGBodHR8fHxMXIiQiHiQcHh8e/9sAQwEFBQUHBgcOCAgOHhQRFB4e Hh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4e/8AAEQgAYQCC AwEiAAIRAQMRAf/EAB8AAAEFAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAABAgMEBQYHCAkKC//EALUQAAIBAwMCBAMF BQQEAAABfQECAwAEEQUSITFBBhNRYQcicRQygZGhCCNCscEVUtHwJDNicoIJChYXGBkaJSYnKCkq NDU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElKU1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6g4SFhoeIiYqSk5SVlpeYmZqi o6Slpqeoqaqys7S1tre4ubrCw8TFxsfIycrS09TV1tfY2drh4uPk5ebn6Onq8fLz9PX29/j5+v/E AB8BAAMBAQEBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAABAgMEBQYHCAkKC//EALURAAIBAgQEAwQHBQQEAAECdwABAgMR BAUhMQYSQVEHYXETIjKBCBRCkaGxwQkjM1LwFWJy0QoWJDThJfEXGBkaJicoKSo1Njc4OTpDREVG R0hJSlNUVVZXWFlaY2RlZmdoaWpzdHV2d3h5eoKDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ipqrKz tLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uLj5OXm5+jp6vLz9PX29/j5+v/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A +yqKKpa1qNvpdhJd3DYCjgf3j6Um7AR69rNjotm1zeyhePlQdWPtXgHxK+IF3q8rRK/lW6k7Y1PH 1Pqai+I/iy41O8kkeTjoqg8AeleVates7Ek1ztub1OinFLUTV9RaUtk1zd3PkmpLyYknmqDI7561 ZoRyyjFVZJBVl4DjkioJLWQqWVSQO9JpjVmV2kqNnprhskY5qCRsZB61LZXKPeSomkqJ5KgeSlYL FhpKjaQVXaWozJ71LQEzOKgkIppkFRs+ahxDQaevSimEn0NFLlZNkfq1PLHDC0srBUUZJPYV4l8U vF5vJWhjbbCmQq5/Wtv4n+NovJazspf3Y+8394/4V4D4g1lp5ny+a6akr7HNCFyDWr/zXYljzXM3 kqkn5jS3t3uY81lzz5PWpTsdKQ9k3NksMUj4VcDio4pN52jvSzjDLjJAqosTXQcsabsvhh6mkm2y JtVM+hzgflTbeJrmYZ+XJ4HrXT2WjO93DAsRGBuIx0zwM/pUTqWNKdK5i2/g+8vrT7VBESD3FYmu eH7yzTe0Z4619P6V4faz0uGJI9u1ACMe1cz4w0FJkYNEM884rmVbU7JUFbQ+X7hWRsEEVVd67nxz of2SYSBThuOK4SZSjEdMV1R1RySVnYYXNNLU05NFOxAuaazHsKKQmk0IYSc9TRRmilYD6Y8Uay0r vlyfxrhLy8LyMd1Tazflmbmuca4y781T2CK0LlxcIY87jvzz6Vmz3GASTUcsvvVO5kyhqS0aWmXW 0lzyc8VuWUccscs0uMBCR6ZxXF2k22QAnHNeg+EbCDU9NAlLOqv8yKcU27RFa8iDwzNbnUQzoAg+ Yn19q9e+HWj3GqXr6tcxFICw25/ix0x7CpvDGgaethGy+HoJYkOQABn688mvRtGu7VoRCsXksABs K4Kj6Vy1J82x10YpF0qgXDBsEZrmddt4XVjgDjpXRXd7awwOJpETbnqa5HV9c08qdjPIMcsqHA96 ws2dLaijyn4j6dG2nSEAZVsivDNeg8m9Yf3uSPQ9xXt/xK1KODSpXd8AvtBFeEX18967SynLliSa 76Pwnm1X7xRckDIGajYydzGv1NSP1/GqEpYl8Y+9/jWqM2WSTnBuEHsBTCYsEtcuQPQVXw3mduF/ pTNreS3I6j+tFibk5e1z/rpfzNFVNj+oop2Xcm56tqd1lsZ61krLkvSXk4IPr61J4f0+51a7NtbL k5yxPRR6mm1oUpWK7yHvUbNkc12WpeA76NU+xyrMduXDfLg+1YGoeHNYslLT2j7R3Xn+VS4MSqRf UwxxMFPQ17r8GtLVLa5iZxLnaVYjqCoI/nXhpimNyiLGzMTgKBkk19D/AAlvftC3E08PkysVDoRj aQAuP0NYV78h1UbSlY7nT9IEihbiRvLDbsEnj/61apdRqMEMWSVbLk9Oau2MZe33AY9qyIdzeIBB tJwck45J4Ncyk5RsdapKLua2pLGdVmgmA3FQ0eenuK57UrO+itjAs5lj3Hl8HjsK2NSYSeJgXBTg 8HtVvU0jit92FPHWm5cq5ROjzPmPnH47WktvawpGpZM/P/sk968UKbF21758eb+z+xS28g3TybDD 7YPJ/Lj8a8EnYDkkAV1Ub8hxVdJETHkfWs9iQh7ZNXWO4fK2D6imEy46o31FarQyZUJ+eT2BppP7 gDjGauZPO62Rs9cGmt9m2hXgkUA9hTJsRxplFPsKKmE9soCgnA4HBopCszelaSUhUVmLHAAGc16f 8KrKazs2jubSSGWVi6sy9R0wfQ/410ugeHLSyjCQ2yBB1HU/Wt+HTgp4Ax6Dt6Gt1E5JVrqwqwsm yTbg4x7EVPJZR3EZLRqcj0q5aIHjIbllyCfXpzVi3jDfL0IPWqMr3ONfwzZWmqf2gsSB9pBAAz9c 03wr5lj4olgZsJclZV/lj9P1rd19s3iRjlAOfes3UoJEuob2EHfC+7AHJUjnH5A/hWVWPNFo6cPU cJpnpy6iYx5CkLj9aasYnuRcxTBbheQysM1zdvexarZpIoUsvysK0bCNwpT7HHIO2W2gGvNiktGe 4ndamq07RXJuZ5Vkm27SzEdPSqup3+61do2JTHI7A4NZlxGXlO63jjVey8/rWf4i1RUsks4Ths84 /Kq5OZ2QSmoK/Q8E+Lurfa/EckX3hCu3r0PU153cnMb8dq988beCdO12zFzCvk3ajl1H3/r6/WvK b/wVqVqWJxNGp/hB3fl/+uu9U7I8p1lJ3OIjR3cLGDuPpWk9q8FgzsxaXtWilkkEhITB78VPLt8o EqcEUmx3OXW7I+8g/CpFuozwcj61NqFiWfzLZDg/eGay5UZGwykH3paMdy/58X99aKzKKOUVz7Qt l29GAPUH3q9BJESpIA3ZGKwpZGiOQxOOetIl+qyfe4DBh7cVtGR5aR0duVN4yphf3fP58fyNK7GN zj5fQ1kaZeLJK8obhjgc9h/k1buZ8RlgcnFUy0Y2qXqSapKrP8oUEZ9Rn+mafDN5yrIGyAcEVi3c 24u/fzT/ACFP027ZH28EHjFQ2aJEulatdvc3DWyb7i2kMNxGDgyKPut9cY5710EHisRLh7e4jJ4+ eI8H61wGmahHbfEy4tDlBewhsZ/jA/wBrtNtuoDMSWHJOeK46kUpHr4epJwLF5r5uMpbo5kkGRlS AB3bmufs7pby3W5DFxIzFXP8QzgfyrI8f+IE0nQriVHAvr/MUIHVE7n8v5il8KP/AMUxpuDj9yta 0IpLmOfFVHL3TqbeZRhSeGH61R1C1jLkhQVbnpTVkO0q3H9KJJmaPk5PrXVzHDY5DxH4btLsmRVM bnqy964TWLN9MuxbP84K5VugYV6zeSBhmuH8f2/mWcVymAYnKsfY/wD16iaVjSnLWxw1xFltynBP XHAqnMi42ybWPpjNXriSQIAhB7ZFVliPJPU9c1zto3KJtLbP+qoq4dmetFLmA+kLr/Wn/cNZ/wDy 1/L+tFFbQ2R5pqaP/wAecf8Auf1rSvfuH/doorQqO5yc3Rv+up/kKbZf65frRRSZrE5TVP8Akq+n fRf/AGavRbv7jfSiiuWvuj0sJ8LPIvi//wAhiy/69/6mu18Lf8ivpv8A1wX+VFFb0/gRy1/jZrP0 /EU7+D8KKKvoYmdP3rl/Gv8AyA7n/gP8xRRQ9hR3OBj+4aY/3D9KKK45bnWVD1NFFFIs/9k= ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C9BD08.5B1487F0-- From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Tue Apr 14 06:23:34 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF203A6A33 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:23:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.318 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AfAndJY4S4TQ for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 503D63A68BA for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ewi977 (ewi977.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.12.129]) by rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n3EDOdXZ011586; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:24:43 +0200 (MEST) From: "Georgios Karagiannis" To: "'Martin Stiemerling'" , "'NSIS'" References: <49DE376A.5080508@ericsson.com> <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FE626@VENUS.office> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:24:34 +0200 Message-ID: <003801c9bd04$5d89a370$810c5982@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Thread-Index: Acm5PO9Lt7iOkTJqSKew7O+BOv5A0wDtZpsQAAP+R4A= In-Reply-To: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FE626@VENUS.office> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.5 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:24:44 +0200 (MEST) Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:23:34 -0000 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,=20 seems to still be there. >From what I understood from the email sent by Magnus, Magnus already = chose to go with=20 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=20 by Magnus is an acceptable one for me. Best regards, Georgios > -----Original Message----- > From: nsis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling > Sent: dinsdag 14 april 2009 14:37 > To: NSIS > Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call >=20 > [writing as co-chair] >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > GIST has now been under IESG review and discussion since=20 > mid/end of 2006. GIST was returned to the WG before the=20 > IETF#68 meeting in Prague (before March 2007). Three=20 > partially different IESGs have reviewed and discussed GIST.=20 >=20 > Since then GIST has been under discussion and several=20 > DISCUSSES have been resolved apart from the general doubt=20 > whether GIST as such is mature enough for standards track.=20 > This doubt seems to be still there, even with the new IESG members.=20 >=20 > GIST has gone a long road in the IESG and still is not=20 > considered suitable for standards track. Magnus described the=20 > two possible ways in this situation: > - downgrading GIST to experimental or > - invoking the alternative procedure. >=20 > Downgrading is a hard step, especially after all the good=20 > work of the authors and the WG, the successful interops, the=20 > early expert review, and so on. BUT GIST as such will be=20 > still published as RFC. Calling for alternative procedure=20 > will eventually prolong the way of GIST to RFC status for an=20 > even longer time, with even more burden to the working group=20 > (considering a refusal of the IESG). As the WG will not only=20 > be in charge of finalizing GIST (and the other documents),=20 > but also be subject to a charter review. >=20 > However, in the full spirit of progressing NSIS to RFC status=20 > and not to abolish all the excellent work of the past, the=20 > decision to go for experimental looks natural in the light of=20 > the dead lock.=20 >=20 > Remember, that GIST is only the first document out of the=20 > whole series that is still to come (e.g., QoS NSLP, NATFW=20 > NSLP, QSPEC, etc). >=20 > Please note, that downgrading to experimental, also likely=20 > applies to the NSLPs. >=20 > Please let the WG know your opinion about that! >=20 > Martin=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nsis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces@ietf.org]=20 > On Behalf=20 > > Of Magnus Westerlund > > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:59 PM > > To: NSIS > > Cc: IESG > > Subject: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call > >=20 > > At today's IESG call we discussed the status of GIST and=20 > path forward. > >=20 > > It was clear that IESG is still dead locked on this=20 > document about its=20 > > intended status. We polled all the IESG members and it is=20 > clear that=20 > > publication as experimental status is acceptable for all, including=20 > > the ones that are currently abstaining. After discussion I was left=20 > > with a choice between invoking the alternative procedure=20 > (See bottom=20 > > of > > http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/voting-procedures.txt) and=20 > publication=20 > > as the experimental. Please note that one of result of the=20 > alternative=20 > > procedure if that fails is a charter review. Based on these choices=20 > > and the information I have, I have chosen to go with=20 > downgrading GIST=20 > > to Experimental status. I think that is the least=20 > disruptive choice I=20 > > can make currently. > >=20 > > I request that the WG resolves the discusses and submits a=20 > new draft=20 > > version with an updated intended status. As usual discusses are for=20 > > discussion and I hope can be resolved reasonably quickly with the=20 > > discussing ADs. > >=20 > > I am personally sorry that it has taken until now to come to any=20 > > conclusion on the status question. > >=20 > > Best Regards > >=20 > > Magnus Westerlund > >=20 > > IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > > F=E4r=F6gatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 >=20 >=20 > stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu >=20 > NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC=20 > Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria=20 > Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014=20 > _______________________________________________ > nsis mailing list > nsis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis >=20 From bless@tm.uka.de Thu Apr 16 15:04:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D3F3A6ED0 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:04:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.038 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tzCjIgck6Lc5 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000123A6DF9 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.5]) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps id 1LuZiO-00079v-8g; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:05:51 +0200 Received: from i72ms.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.70.5] helo=smtp.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de) by irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps id 1LuZiO-000365-4c; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:05:48 +0200 Received: from vorta.tm.uka.de (vorta.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de [IPv6:2001:638:204:6:21b:fcff:fe96:fe02]) by smtp.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16FF2FC018; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:05:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorta.tm.uka.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A8E10083; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:05:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <49E7ABBA.5040900@tm.uka.de> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:05:46 +0200 From: Roland Bless Organization: Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Stiemerling References: <49DE376A.5080508@ericsson.com> <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FE626@VENUS.office> In-Reply-To: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FE626@VENUS.office> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: Kaspersky (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) Cc: NSIS Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:04:52 -0000 Hi Martin and all, see below... Martin Stiemerling wrote: > 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! I'm really disappointed. IMHO the WG has done all necessary steps to make it a really good protocol. If we didn't care about protocol quality, we could have finished GIST long time ago. It's not the WGs fault that using Router-Alert turned into a potential/real show stopper later on, though it is still used for RSVP. We asked all the experts at the time, and, it was the recommended practice to efficiently intercept signaling packets. Therefore, it really is totally weird if one reads Adrian Farrel's DISCUSS POINT 3 on whether the currently RAO-less option is efficient and fast enough (esp. if you recall that he actually already reviewed the document some years ago). The IESG seems now to pull into the RAO direction again(?), if reading Cullen Jenning's comment. I also cannot understand Ross Callon's comment why we need GIST at all in addition to RSVP and RSVP-TE, though our WG published various RFCs on this topic already at the very beginning. Ron Bonica's comments are also depressing. I don't agree with his comment on complexity at all, because we have several interoperable implementations, which were not too hard to code. Furthermore, if you take page count as a measure for complexity, OSPFv3 would never have been standardized... As an L3 control protocol for IP resources, it naturally has to deal with a lot of things, so I don't think that there are easier solutions for the same feature set. However, if going for experimental gets us out of this whole mess quickly, let's do it. Please no more delays. It would be good having an official RFC number anyway for vendors in order to implement it. Probably, then they see the benefits more clearly... Regards, Roland From fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de Mon Apr 20 11:08:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA3C28C0FC for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:08:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1x+51pDG+RSY for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amailer.gwdg.de (amailer.gwdg.de [134.76.10.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8E73A6FB7 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [200.159.250.4] (helo=[172.18.5.131]) by mailer.gwdg.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lvxvy-0001hd-Ty; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:09:35 +0200 Message-ID: <49ECBA95.1010909@cs.uni-goettingen.de> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:10:29 +0200 From: Xiaoming Fu Organization: University of Goettingen, Germany User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland Bless References: <49DE376A.5080508@ericsson.com> <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FE626@VENUS.office> <49E7ABBA.5040900@tm.uka.de> In-Reply-To: <49E7ABBA.5040900@tm.uka.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated: Id:xfu X-Virus-Scanned: (clean) by exiscan+sophie Cc: NSIS Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:08:27 -0000 I second Roland's comments. Xiaoming Roland Bless wrote: > Hi Martin and all, > > see below... > > Martin Stiemerling wrote: > >> 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! > > I'm really disappointed. IMHO the WG has done all necessary > steps to make it a really good protocol. If we didn't care about > protocol quality, we could have finished GIST long time ago. > It's not the WGs fault that using Router-Alert turned into a > potential/real show stopper later on, though it is still used for RSVP. > We asked all the experts at the time, and, it was the recommended > practice to efficiently intercept signaling packets. > Therefore, it really is totally weird if one reads Adrian Farrel's > DISCUSS POINT 3 on whether the currently RAO-less option is > efficient and fast enough (esp. if you recall that he actually > already reviewed the document some years ago). > The IESG seems now to pull into the RAO direction again(?), if > reading Cullen Jenning's comment. > I also cannot understand Ross Callon's comment why we need > GIST at all in addition to RSVP and RSVP-TE, though our WG > published various RFCs on this topic already at the very beginning. > > Ron Bonica's comments are also depressing. I don't agree with > his comment on complexity at all, because we have several > interoperable implementations, which were not too hard to > code. Furthermore, if you take page count as a measure for > complexity, OSPFv3 would never have been standardized... > As an L3 control protocol for IP resources, it naturally has > to deal with a lot of things, so I don't think that there > are easier solutions for the same feature set. > > However, if going for experimental gets us out of this > whole mess quickly, let's do it. Please no more delays. > It would be good having an official RFC number anyway for vendors > in order to implement it. Probably, then they see the benefits > more clearly... > > Regards, > Roland > From gash5107@yahoo.com Mon Apr 20 13:08:53 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385583A6A58 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:08:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.007 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.538, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE=2.809, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bBSZUJPVnMtT for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web63602.mail.re1.yahoo.com (web63602.mail.re1.yahoo.com [69.147.97.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C81923A6919 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 67367 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Apr 2009 20:03:28 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1240257808; bh=Gmk5BtXkpvyx9OImOo7gee1F0ZrD1ZZdeRv0YR+8bCY=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=w7rkT0LbD+817NWO1R7Jyt/ziYP26A8pIakvd9uDk5dUr3FMHCKc8Y3iM3jA9unVTeGUDicF1DUBl6iCu46hA8tfpNYfCs7TMOk2q9hUznha8E0B6VuWGoJklGFndYm8BeW70T2cTtUtPFVU80c+UecNM9bQlHuB/Sll+tuqM2Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=f4Sp30RLj2vvXdvPZHiSRp6stgQSBHYDSzZViIl1VA8YEkccUZILxKEcspB/AGlbFd5YLghcjebSwwRiI4syTwnvGx69IIG/YWbWwLt2yfQoCy5JyvL5GsRYcL040sYRUgKgRSVHTY4jxmCF56AWdomkPKDVk/qvgBT4GAUhrYg=; Message-ID: <315481.66436.qm@web63602.mail.re1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: LH51QZEVM1mJ0xQb5lHLHP5sh.YWNSACMWXbZo6_gL5BRnQG5HADT4hYwrmf5BWnuukp7GyFSjbw2tS__kdkEyzdR9dsU9QZVE0PCJDzD5qNiugsb_EdMnrtxdWhv_l7YFWoG9kbBbhIGjuXmhXAyHxASOkVYUU2B2axLIGYNyPxsS5L1Ah7jFPtOmlN1TpBMyeoZxhjU1PJNDjsZ6PTzyvNAfmbgNLgV2P8aYbHwdVkNZeTToLeetzshzVxTgpCCCG7bRSqua4CbpBsYayPx2J0fnsaFG4_FSJz6L_sv5fhPunjs9PC7c5dp3kQ Received: from [76.19.255.157] by web63602.mail.re1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:03:28 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.1 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:03:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Gerald Ash To: NSIS , iesg@ietf.org, Martin Stiemerling In-Reply-To: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C7FE626@VENUS.office> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1146466170-1240257808=:66436" Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: gash5107@yahoo.com List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:08:53 -0000 --0-1146466170-1240257808=:66436 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A couple of comments and requests: =C2=A0 1. IMO after 8 years of hard work on NSIS, the WG deserves more of an expla= nation for downgrading GIST to experimental than =E2=80=9Cthe IESG was dead= locked=E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 What is the *technical* explanation for why the IESG= DISCUSS=E2=80=99s could not be resolved?=C2=A0 After several years of IESG= review, the main DISCUSS issue still appears to be how to detect GIST pack= ets: RAO is unacceptable (although it did pass an earlier IESG review); por= t/magick is a =E2=80=9Cnon starter=E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 There is no proposed res= olution offered in any of the DISCUSS comments.=C2=A0 Is there no acceptabl= e way (to the IESG) to detect GIST packets?=C2=A0 We are not privy to the d= iscussion that must have taken place. =C2=A0 Request: Perhaps an IESG member could write a =E2=80=9Cmajority opinion=E2= =80=9D to explain to the NSIS WG why this DISCUSS issue (and any others) co= uld not be resolved. =C2=A0 2. A couple of IESG comments cast doubt on the need/motivation for NSIS.=C2= =A0 The NSIS BOF was held at IETF-50 (March 2001).=C2=A0 Several comments m= ade at the BOF (documented at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01mar/index.h= tml, search =E2=80=9Cnsis=E2=80=9D) identify the perceived need for improve= ment in signaling protocols.=C2=A0 Bob Braden published an I-D proposing th= e 2-layer NSIS architecture at http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-bra= den-2level-signal-arch-01.txt (his CSTP became GIST).=C2=A0 An analysis of = existing signaling protocols was published in RFC 4094 http://www.ietf.org/= rfc/rfc4094.txt. =C2=A0=C2=A0Surely much has changed over 8 years and probl= ems may have been fixed and needs vanished thus nullifying the original mot= ivation? =C2=A0 Request: Perhaps people with a long view could comment on the evolution of = problems/needs over this 8 year period. =C2=A0 Thanks, Jerry --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Martin Stiemerling wrote: From: Martin Stiemerling Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call To: "NSIS" 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. G= IST was returned to the WG before the IETF#68 meeting in Prague (before March 2= 007). Three partially different IESGs have reviewed and discussed GIST.=20 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.=20 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=20 - invoking the alternative procedure. Downgrading is a hard step, especially after all the good work of the autho= rs and the WG, the successful interops, the early expert review, and so on. BU= T GIST as such will be still published as RFC. Calling for alternative proced= ure will eventually prolong the way of GIST to RFC status for an even longer ti= me, with even more burden to the working group (considering a refusal of the IE= SG). 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 experime= ntal looks natural in the light of the dead lock.=20 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=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: nsis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces@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 >=20 > At today's IESG call we discussed the status of GIST and path forward. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > I am personally sorry that it has taken until now to come to any > conclusion on the status question. >=20 > Best Regards >=20 > Magnus Westerlund >=20 > IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > F=C3=A4r=C3=B6gatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- stiemerling@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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis =0A=0A=0A --0-1146466170-1240257808=:66436 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A couple of comments and requests:

 

1. IMO after 8 years of hard work on NSIS, the WG deserves more of a= n explanation for downgrading GIST to experimental than =E2=80=9Cthe IESG w= as deadlocked=E2=80=9D.  What= is the *technical* explanation for why the IESG DISCUSS=E2=80=99s could no= t be resolved?  After several= years of IESG review, the main DISCUSS issue still appears to be how to de= tect GIST packets: RAO is unacceptable (although it did pass an earlier IES= G review); port/magick is a =E2=80=9Cnon starter=E2=80=9D.  There is no proposed resolution offered in a= ny of the DISCUSS comments.  = Is there no acceptable way (to the IESG) to detect GIST packets?  We are not privy to the discussion tha= t must have taken place.

 

Request: Perhaps an IESG member could write a =E2=80=9Cmajority opin= ion=E2=80=9D to explain to the NSIS WG why this DISCUSS issue (and any othe= rs) could not be resolved.

 

2. A couple of IESG comments cast doubt on the need/motivation for N= SIS.  The NSIS BOF was held a= t IETF-50 (March 2001).  Seve= ral comments made at the BOF (documented at http://= www.ietf.org/proceedings/01mar/index.html, search =E2=80=9Cnsis=E2=80=9D) identify the perceived need for im= provement in signaling protocols.  <= /SPAN>Bob Braden published an I-D proposing the 2-layer NSIS architecture a= t http://www.watersprings.= org/pub/id/draft-braden-2level-signal-arch-01.txt (his CSTP became GIST).  An analysis o= f existing signaling protocols was published in RFC 4094 http://= www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4094.txt.   Surely much has changed o= ver 8 years and problems may have been fixed and needs vanished thus nullif= ying the original motivation?

 

Request: Perhaps people with a long view could comment on the evolut= ion of problems/needs over this 8 year period.

 

Thanks,

Jerry



--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Martin Stiemerling <Stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu> wrote:

From: Martin Stiemerling <Stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu= >
Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call
To: "NSIS= " <nsis@ietf.org>
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. G= IST was returned to the WG before the IETF#68 meeting in Prague (before March 2= 007). Three partially different IESGs have reviewed and discussed GIST.=20 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.=20 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=20 - invoking the alternative procedure. Downgrading is a hard step, especially after all the good work of the autho= rs and the WG, the successful interops, the early expert review, and so on. BU= T GIST as such will be still published as RFC. Calling for alternative proced= ure will eventually prolong the way of GIST to RFC status for an even longer ti= me, with even more burden to the working group (considering a refusal of the IE= SG). 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 experime= ntal looks natural in the light of the dead lock.=20 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=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: nsis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf O= f > Magnus Westerlund > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:59 PM > To: NSIS > Cc: IESG > Subject: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call >=20 > At today's IESG call we discussed the status of GIST and path forward. >=20 > 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 th= e > 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 an= d > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > I am personally sorry that it has taken until now to come to any > conclusion on the status question. >=20 > Best Regards >=20 > Magnus Westerlund >=20 > IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > F=C3=A4r=C3=B6gatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- stiemerling@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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

=0A=0A --0-1146466170-1240257808=:66436-- From bless@tm.uka.de Tue Apr 21 02:34:22 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC853A6AD3; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:34:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.059 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.059 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HtXvO+zSJvWA; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0923A6AE2; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.5]) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps id 1LwCO3-0003Nt-Fa; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:35:34 +0200 Received: from i72ms.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.70.5] helo=smtp.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de) by irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps id 1LwCO3-0000pS-96; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:35:31 +0200 Received: from vorta.tm.uka.de (vorta.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de [IPv6:2001:638:204:6:21b:fcff:fe96:fe02]) by smtp.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2044C2FC018; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:35:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorta.tm.uka.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE71101C2; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:35:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <49ED9362.4050206@tm.uka.de> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:35:30 +0200 From: Roland Bless Organization: Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gash5107@yahoo.com References: <315481.66436.qm@web63602.mail.re1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <315481.66436.qm@web63602.mail.re1.yahoo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: Kaspersky (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) Cc: iesg@ietf.org, NSIS Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:34:22 -0000 Hi Jerry and all, Gerald Ash wrote: > 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, IMHO it's not the DISCUSSes that cannot be resolved. It's just that the majority of IESG members have changed several times over the long period, the WG chair has changed and major proponents of the NSIS approach have left the IESG. Therefore, IESG people seem to have pulled in different directions, esp. if you consider the RAO discussion. We couldn't get it right from the beginning since some people said: "Oh, please use RAO for interception" and others said "don't use it, it's broken". For some people, RAO is an already deployed (but poorly defined and badly implemented) means and more efficient than any other alternative, for others it's not usable in a general scope and will cause deployment problems. Any alternative, like the one specified now, seems to be disliked also, because it's not very efficient to process in the fast path. Gee, a *constructive* criticism or even *help* from the IESG would be really appreciated. > 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. I would go further: I think the IESG should really come up with a *constructive* proposal how to resolve the issue. As I said: the WG has done everything to get it right, but obviously the IESG has changed too quickly before we could get it right. :-) Furthermore, I want to mention that the path-coupled signaling MRM is only *one* method. GIST is flexible enough to use others. > 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. I still think that we need a flexible and new signaling solution and that RSVP is not really well suited for many signaling applications other than RSVP-TE. GIST supports mobility, provides Session-ID and Peer-IDs, various signaling routing methods, denial of service protection, flexible use of different transports, and security features. I guess it's more the lack of willingness to implement another signaling protocol into router software. Regards, Roland From bless@tm.uka.de Tue Apr 21 04:35:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733B43A7022; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:35:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.076 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PJwCG-XJtV7c; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C1E3A702B; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.5]) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps id 1LwEGl-0002FZ-Fu; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:36:16 +0200 Received: from i72ms.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.70.5] helo=smtp.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de) by irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps id 1LwEGl-0007LL-7x; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:36:07 +0200 Received: from vorta.tm.uka.de (vorta.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de [IPv6:2001:638:204:6:21b:fcff:fe96:fe02]) by smtp.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1805F2FC018; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:36:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorta.tm.uka.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FAA101C2; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:36:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <49EDAFA6.5080309@tm.uka.de> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:36:06 +0200 From: Roland Bless Organization: Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gash5107@yahoo.com References: <315481.66436.qm@web63602.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <49ED9362.4050206@tm.uka.de> In-Reply-To: <49ED9362.4050206@tm.uka.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: Kaspersky (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) Cc: iesg@ietf.org, NSIS Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:35:10 -0000 Hi again, I was too fast when hitting the "send" button... Some more small comments inline. Roland Bless wrote: > Gerald Ash wrote: >> 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, > > IMHO it's not the DISCUSSes that cannot be resolved. It's just > that the majority of IESG members have changed several times over the > long period, the WG chair has changed and major proponents of the NSIS > approach have left the IESG. Therefore, IESG people seem to have pulled Please don't take this wrong: this is no criticism of any former/current WG chairs. > in different directions, esp. if you consider the RAO discussion. > We couldn't get it right from the beginning since some people said: > "Oh, please use RAO for interception" and others said "don't use it, > it's broken". For some people, RAO is an already deployed (but poorly > defined and badly implemented) means and more efficient than any other > alternative, for others it's not usable in a general scope and will > cause deployment problems. Any alternative, like the one specified > now, seems to be disliked also, because it's not very efficient to > process in the fast path. Gee, a *constructive* criticism or even > *help* from the IESG would be really appreciated. > >> 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. > > I would go further: I think the IESG should really come up with a > *constructive* proposal how to resolve the issue. As I said: the WG > has done everything to get it right, but obviously the IESG has changed > too quickly before we could get it right. :-) > Furthermore, I want to mention that the path-coupled signaling MRM is > only *one* method. GIST is flexible enough to use others. > >> 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? The above RFC is "only" 4 years old. >> Request: Perhaps people with a long view could comment on the evolution >> of problems/needs over this 8 year period. Unfortunately, I wasn't at the BOF. Allison Mankin ran the BOF but she left the IETF and is now at the NSF. Scott Bradner was Transport AD at the time, too. Probably he can comment? > I still think that we need a flexible and new signaling solution and > that RSVP is not really well suited for many signaling applications > other than RSVP-TE. > GIST supports mobility, provides Session-ID and Peer-IDs, various > signaling routing methods, denial of service protection, flexible use of > different transports, and security features. I guess it's more the lack > of willingness to implement another signaling protocol into router > software. Moreover, RSVP allows for receiver-initiated reservations only, whereas QoS NSLP allows sender-initiated and receiver-initiated reservations... But I don't want to repeat the requirements/analysis docs here. Finally, we have *running code* since several years now and we were aiming for *proposed* standard, neither draft nor full standard at this time. So I don't fully understand the fear of some IESG members that going for PS would be dangerous to the Internet.... Regards, Roland From magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Tue Apr 21 05:22:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8740D3A6B3A; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:22:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.174 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yuPOfpcAUUFd; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (mailgw3.ericsson.se [193.180.251.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F913A67E7; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id C9ECB20A81; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:23:28 +0200 (CEST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-affd5bb00000238f-ce-49edbaa7475f Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 1FDAD21121; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:23:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:22:54 +0200 Received: from [147.214.183.173] ([147.214.183.173]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:22:54 +0200 Message-ID: <49EDBA9E.4000902@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:22:54 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gash5107@yahoo.com References: <315481.66436.qm@web63602.mail.re1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <315481.66436.qm@web63602.mail.re1.yahoo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2009 12:22:54.0172 (UTC) FILETIME=[E55EA1C0:01C9C27B] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: iesg@ietf.org, NSIS Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:22:15 -0000 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@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From rcallon@juniper.net Tue Apr 21 09:11:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D6828C257; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:11:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.482 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sj7OGd45ubx6; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chip3og60.obsmtp.com (chip3og60.obsmtp.com [64.18.14.185]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB07A3A704A; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by chip3ob60.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSe3wb6+QQBi/LyDb+sRBvHDfzxuIhXBU@postini.com; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:12:39 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.340.0; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:07:35 -0700 Received: from p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.46]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:07:35 -0700 Received: from emailwf1.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.33]) by p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:07:35 -0700 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:07:33 -0400 Message-ID: <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C06298F22@emailwf1.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <49EDBA9E.4000902@ericsson.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call Thread-Index: AcnCe/7GwLqgLdMiS3ywKQaaR2laxgAHTEzA References: <315481.66436.qm@web63602.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <49EDBA9E.4000902@ericsson.com> From: Ross Callon To: "Magnus Westerlund" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2009 16:07:35.0077 (UTC) FILETIME=[489D7D50:01C9C29B] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:19:26 -0700 Cc: iesg@ietf.org, NSIS Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIST updated from todays IESG call X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:11:35 -0000 > > 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. >=20 > 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. I would support a requirement that in the case where there are enough abstain positions to prevent a document from going forward, then each AD with an abstain position MUST write a comment explaining why they are abstaining.=20 Of course, in this case each of the abstain positions *does* already (at least now) have a note explaining why.=20 Ross=20 From Stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu Wed Apr 22 08:16:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD9C3A6CE0 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:16:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.229 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.370, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZM2qS7LMpQ0V for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16083A6D78 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:15:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C1B2C01C8ED for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:17:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id By3V4kcis6Sv for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:17:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from VENUS.office (mx2.office [192.168.24.15]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43F42C01918D for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:17:01 +0200 (CEST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:16:59 +0200 Message-ID: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C881D46@VENUS.office> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Meeting minutes IETF#74 Thread-Index: AcnDXWGzn0dEA9FRS/i4vHbXOGhkhA== From: "Martin Stiemerling" To: "NSIS" Subject: [NSIS] Meeting minutes IETF#74 X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:16:38 -0000 Hi, Please check the NSIS meeting minutes of IETF#74: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/nsis.txt Thanks a lot for writing up the minutes to Teemu and Lauri!! Martin stiemerling@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=20 From ookaybey@yahoo.com Thu Apr 23 13:37:11 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04C33A69E4 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:37:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TO5Ng88YwtcQ for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web50410.mail.re2.yahoo.com (web50410.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.38.245]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 056093A6A90 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 6511 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Apr 2009 20:38:26 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1240519106; bh=RN53uSkFLUNUCeW5y4YWP+MQKrCSJghduUaNDHqLaM8=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=t/8CnGxkLCjTUvjsfk8iHmfFivAtpqfWBQdq6Pf+7BfYEETN8hOBmNba1WLFAWcRRTggEMnnkGdSuSGem2yC6mn7xuquINfQE7juFbbIxuf9m6/ne+n5dl+KByjzWZPVNIRfIrEqR2WkKRQnCmi6Lh9ulWn/UxBEQyJvTaOBWS4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=i+V5+5EJyL/TvHMsvhcoi87/eWu3mWKVVgKEebKIGv1nZIDgbo5Ht7SMcmVHQVzm/7vUlo1i9zZM9f/kXaDgPhOobe68O0t03zqykRAKmwnA34/L9ZgassVJuLn+6ENQ5Fp02jTnk1898rg0L2EUByn3fp1eF01joOCwSySyleQ=; Message-ID: <754557.5789.qm@web50410.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: R016UdIVM1l4HkhD9w8kAkOqdXMtlaGhPNsg0LhWpxgOqGM0Um7fJTWqXEb5pDyGIFJQ8TnPlIM5DiGxOld4Uv9BOekX0VWkY87VisYs48gCutvh4IPX.q562ifHeov90NRyn1ZRufWvmORZzxjm13jjqDzKCTR1qYhxlQcDZ3pNoEr1TXtFmtM3K9srjI_ZY3ruFZt9sqrHXI6bghH6aglVKeU_3gVEaM948ZuybFmj6OlemM5BzFNbRTK5A89khoNVbQtSz2XvACrCRWEL829yV5Yq Received: from [88.241.255.124] by web50410.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:38:26 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1277.35 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.1 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:38:26 -0700 (PDT) From: okan okay bey To: nsis@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [NSIS] Mailing List X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:37:12 -0000 How can i quit the mailing list? thanks From magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Mon Apr 27 06:42:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D1D3A6D89 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:42:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.181 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QMI+fvNoE-Y0 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1FE3A68AF for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:42:23 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-b7bb8ae000006a07-bd-49f5b68fa90a Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E1.82.27143.F86B5F94; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:43:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.170]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:43:43 +0200 Received: from [147.214.183.173] ([147.214.183.173]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:43:43 +0200 Message-ID: <49F5B68F.2030204@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:43:43 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: okan okay bey References: <754557.5789.qm@web50410.mail.re2.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <754557.5789.qm@web50410.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2009 13:43:43.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DFEC1A0:01C9C73E] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: nsis@ietf.org Subject: Re: [NSIS] Mailing List X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:42:25 -0000 okan okay bey skrev: > How can i quit the mailing list? thanks Follow this link that is in the footer of all email messages: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis Cheers 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@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Thu Apr 30 10:00:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4D23A7175; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:00:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id szT04NX+7cWx; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA9B3A6844; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:00:15 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-b7b7aae000004a86-dd-49f9d9704cf3 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CD.10.19078.079D9F94; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:01:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:00:19 +0200 Received: from [147.214.183.173] ([147.214.183.173]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:00:19 +0200 Message-ID: <49F9D923.5020500@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:00:19 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NSIS , IESG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2009 17:00:19.0212 (UTC) FILETIME=[244DECC0:01C9C9B5] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [NSIS] Discusses on GIST (draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp) regarding query message interception X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:00:17 -0000 The IESG had an informal telechat about the discusses on GIST. The main issue was the discuss around how GIST aware routers is going to intercept the query messages. After some discussion the ADs that was present (including the discuss holders on this topic Cullen Jennings and Adrian Farrel) come to the conclusion that RAO is the least problematic choice for the experimental version of GIST. It is clear that RAO do have some issues and implications. The filtering that occur in networks for RAO have implications on where GIST will function. So to resolve these discusses IESG do request that you go back to using RAO as the interception technique in GIST. The applicability statement also need to note that due to the usage of RAO filtering that occur in the network, for example at AS boundaries the function of GIST will be limited so certain domains. There are still concerns about the risk with RAO in affecting the routers control plane. So IESG encourages the interested individuals to continue to engage in the work on RAO clarification and possibly looking into other techniques that removes these issues. These seems important for any future usage of GIST with less limited scope. 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@ericsson.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------