Re: Status of the WG (January 2009)

Hi Magnus,

Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Actually I don't understand Chris and Lisa's abstain position as I think
> the document is no longer than many other base specifications nor that
> the quality is lacking. But they haven't been swayed by any discussion
> either.

I don't understand Lisa's comment:
"I do not feel it has the quality we expect on the standards track."

Could she back up this a little bit further? This is a rather generic
but strong statement. One could turn any specific criticism
probably even into a constructive one, but this is a little coarse.

What about the IETF credo "running code"?
The doc is fine enough to get more than a hands full of interoperable
implementations (which is required not until going to draft standard
BTW). In the past there were also comments that it's too complex to
implement, but the available implementations should be proof enough
that this really isn't the case.
IMHO the GIST spec is well written, understandable and has a consistent
protocol definition, which isn't weird or flawed. Any path-coupled
signaling protocol will have to do very similar things and currently
I don't see a better way how to do it. Furthermore, all NAT stuff
makes things worse, which wasn't even considered for RSVP.
We are now in the 8th year, guys. Let's get this thing off the table...

Regards,
 Roland