Hello,
Yes, I agree that ISE is the sensible path to take.
The intended status was changed from Experimental to Standards Track in
-11, but Informational is fine for the moment. When/if SOCKSv6 gains
traction, we can issue a bis and change the intended status.
Thanks,
Vlad
On 1/15/21 5:52 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Indeed, but as the current intended status is experimental ;-) it
should not be a problem
-éric
*From: *Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]>
*Reply-To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
*Date: *Friday, 15 January 2021 at 16:43
*To: *Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>
*Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [Int-area] Suggestion to move
draft-olteanu-intarea-socks as Independent Submissions
Hi Eric,
I am sure you know, all independent Submission documents can only be
published as Informational.
I did not check what status the authors wish to have but it is good to
mention here.
Regards,
Behcet
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:55 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Vladimir, Dragos,
While there was some interest in adopting the SOCKv6 document as
an INT-AREA WG document, the lukewarm interest and lack of
reviewer volunteers [1] are preventing the actual adoption of this
document as a WG document (my AD decision in agreement with the
chairs). After discussions with the IESG and our chairs (Juan
Carlos and Wassim in cc), I want to propose to the authors an
easier way to publish this document as an RFC but in the
Independent Submissions (ISE) stream rather than in the usual IETF
stream.
The simple process is outlined at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1VwxfkUlqi_v4NnCaNQ5FzVjfQE2GUrSvMLOxcSe6Y0M0xMMmMxe7ne-103fsoi52WuYjgzRpy_bw_cky7un2UPCEXhP84Ml0TWgCLUgoaLlDnT4nXtp9dR1xOi3hY6hRiWB52oHxmN79vKZJfF0f-HuUrN_g_sJb5h862O4eySFHPxckCXQEiz3LZBY7UfJW6Cph5sd6rIoHFW8FCYIHeNzCaU5gGvMCvkwoqEazcoFWSpPl5IrZkEy66aUabVqVM80g9Qeq1bOiaS8RVRPApCzxRoj-Cf3bSCz2VMAzEBs/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fabout%2Findependent%2F>
and “ISE” is described in RFC 4846.
This should allow this document to move forward and be published
as a RFC.
Hope this helps
-éric (with JC & Wassim)
[1] I tried to contact the previous AFT WG proponents, SOCKS
authors, and some open source SOCKS implementors without any reply
on this topic.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1KB2NleJna66sVXsBDPV9nLQtvvS28j0c8kNZIsOvATOEJLXZsmjyrjSI_NkC6TAIIwhpdbUYJsH72kqcaczlHMkLF-lQXAPKQrrHjoC-Ioxca4cChkf69I41fycQP1Z2SXB6mDCHsZM1qNWLh-eYJdQZE2xEJtDfrF2Za447DuD85VMBbAkYH6zZA6eQaQZB0WlSmePeJi_jxkMLt0jFH_7hAszbaGiRVXAvmD1xdkH5J7U9cuWOBFAxXCBSqev-bfhZvqU7nbqTMPJiTWPY8-mx1et1rXQzLKpxrFy3dis/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fint-area>
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
