Re: [Int-area] Suggestion to move draft-olteanu-intarea-socks as Independent Submissions

Hi Eric, Adrian,

We have two security-related changes in the works (as well as a few 
loose ends to wrap up). Our current plan is to submit one more version 
of the draft and solicit some feedback, and then move forward with it.

Thanks,

Vlad

On 3/2/21 2:37 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> In fact, please contact me at rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org 
> <mailto:rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> to make sure that any Independent 
> Stream business is not lost in my personal inbox.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrian
>
> *From:*Int-area <int-area-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Eric Vyncke 
> (evyncke)
> *Sent:* 02 March 2021 12:24
> *To:* Vladimir Olteanu <vladimir.olteanu@cs.pub.ro>; sarikaya@ieee.org
> *Cc:* int-area@ietf.org; dragos.niculescu@cs.pub.ro
> *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] Suggestion to move 
> draft-olteanu-intarea-socks as Independent Submissions
>
> 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 
> adrian@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>
>
> Regards
>
> -éric
>
> *From: *Vladimir Olteanu <vladimir.olteanu@cs.pub.ro 
> <mailto:vladimir.olteanu@cs.pub.ro>>
> *Date: *Friday, 15 January 2021 at 17:08
> *To: *Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com <mailto:evyncke@cisco.com>>, 
> "sarikaya@ieee.org <mailto:sarikaya@ieee.org>" <sarikaya@ieee.org 
> <mailto:sarikaya@ieee.org>>
> *Cc: *"int-area@ietf.org <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>" 
> <int-area@ietf.org <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>>, 
> "dragos.niculescu@cs.pub.ro <mailto:dragos.niculescu@cs.pub.ro>" 
> <dragos.niculescu@cs.pub.ro <mailto:dragos.niculescu@cs.pub.ro>>
> *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 <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
>     *Reply-To: *"sarikaya@ieee.org" <mailto:sarikaya@ieee.org>
>     <sarikaya@ieee.org> <mailto:sarikaya@ieee.org>
>     *Date: *Friday, 15 January 2021 at 16:43
>     *To: *Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com> <mailto:evyncke@cisco.com>
>     *Cc: *"int-area@ietf.org" <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
>     <int-area@ietf.org> <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>,
>     "vladimir.olteanu@cs.pub.ro" <mailto:vladimir.olteanu@cs.pub.ro>
>     <vladimir.olteanu@cs.pub.ro> <mailto:vladimir.olteanu@cs.pub.ro>,
>     "dragos.niculescu@cs.pub.ro" <mailto:dragos.niculescu@cs.pub.ro>
>     <dragos.niculescu@cs.pub.ro> <mailto:dragos.niculescu@cs.pub.ro>
>     *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=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
>     <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> 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
>         Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org>
>         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>
>