This has been implemented in version -08 (except in the 'changes' section).

GIMPS is now GIST. Hurrah!

[updated to refer to -07. I love this issue.]

[updated section ref to none for -05]

[reassigned to -05]

Below is the mail I sent to the WG on January 4, 2005:
--
Here is a thought about nsis protocol naming: "exteNSible IP Signaling (NSIS)"
for the overal stack, "NSIS base spec" or "NSIS messenger" for NTLP, and "NSIS
xxx (QoS/NATFW/...) application" for NSLPs.

Actually, this is not revolutional - RSVP is not using the immediate ever first
letters as acronym; some other open, extensible protocol frameworks like
Diameter and EAP use a base spec + application. If "base spec" is not felt good
enough, "messenger" could be an alternative (probably technically more
reasonable; the term appeared in Dr. Lixia Zhang's notes on her republished RSVP
paper: http://www.comsoc.org/livepubs/ci1/public/anniv/zhang.html and the NSIS
analysis doc:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-signalling-analysis-05.txt)

What do you think?

[reproduced from section 9.1 of -04:]

Alternate names:
   GIST: General Internet Signaling Transport
   GIMPS: General Internet Messaging Protocol for Signaling
   LUMPS: Lightweight Universal Messaging for Path
associated Signaling

There is a danger of some ambiguity as to whether the
protocol name refers to the complete transport stack below
the signaling applications, or only to the additional
protocol functionality above the standard transport
protocols (UDP, TCP etc.) The NSIS framework uses the term
NTLP for the first, but this specification uses the
GIST/variants names for the second (see Figure 2 in Section
3.1).  In other words, this specification proposes to meet
the requirements for NTLP functionality by layering
GIMPS/...  over existing standard transport protocols.  It
isn't clear if additional terminological surgery is needed
to make this clearer.