On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 8:24 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Adrian, > > > > I share your mood… The lukewarm call for adoption was both disappointing > and a signal to use another path. > > > > -éric > > > > *From: *Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> > *Organization: *Old Dog Consulting > *Reply-To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Date: *Friday, 15 January 2021 at 19:38 > *To: *Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [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 > > > > Just to re-assert that the Independent Submissions Stream can publish > Informational and Experimental RFCs. > > > Thanks for the correction, I thought Informational RFC was the only possibility, as I have already used it that way in the past. Behcet > I am usually saddened when a piece of work that is clearly relevant for > the IETF is unable to get enough traction to be published through the IETF: > adoption by a working group is not the only avenue to publication within > the IETF. However, one of the reasons for the existence of the Independent > Submissions Stream is to provide a way to publish relevant material as an > RFC when the IETF is unable or unwilling to do so. > > > > Best, > > Adrian > > > > *From:* Int-area <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Eric Vyncke > (evyncke) > *Sent:* 15 January 2021 15:52 > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] Suggestion to move draft-olteanu-intarea-socks > as Independent Submissions > > > > 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) <evyncke= > [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/ 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] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
