RFC 5971: GIST: General Internet Signalling Transport
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document specifies protocol stacks for the routing and transport of per-flow signalling messages along the path taken by that flow through the network. The design uses existing transport and security protocols under a common messaging layer, the General Internet Signalling Transport (GIST), which provides a common service for diverse signalling applications. GIST does not handle signalling application state itself, but manages its own internal state and the configuration of the underlying transport and security protocols to enable the transfer of messages in both directions along the flow path. The combination of GIST and the lower layer transport and security protocols provides a solution for the base protocol component of the "Next Steps in Signalling" (NSIS) framework. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5971
- Published
- October 2010
- Authors
- H. Schulzrinne; R. Hancock
- Status
- EXPERIMENTAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- tsv
- Pages
- 154
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5973NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP)Current
October 2010
- RFC 5977RMD-QOSM: The NSIS Quality-of-Service Model for Resource Management in DiffservCurrent
October 2010
- RFC 5979NSIS Operation over IP TunnelsCurrent
March 2011
- RFC 5981Authorization for NSIS Signaling Layer ProtocolsCurrent
February 2011
- RFC 4094Analysis of Existing Quality-of-Service Signaling ProtocolsCurrent
May 2005
- RFC 3726Requirements for Signaling ProtocolsCurrent
April 2004
- RFC 5972General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST) State MachineCurrent
October 2010
- RFC 5974NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP) for Quality-of-Service SignalingCurrent
October 2010
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?