Vlad, Dragos, What are you plan to move forward with this document ? There were some recent emails about it, hence my question :-)
Do you intend to follow the Independent Submission stream (ISE) with intended experimental status ? If so, please contact Adrian Farrel [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Regards -éric From: Vladimir Olteanu <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 15 January 2021 at 17:08 To: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Suggestion to move draft-olteanu-intarea-socks as Independent Submissions 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]><mailto:[email protected]> Reply-To: "[email protected]"<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Date: Friday, 15 January 2021 at 16:43 To: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]"<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[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
