HKDF is gaining in popularity. The only reason for standards track over informational is to avoid a future issue with a downward reference. Russ > On Apr 8, 2019, at 7:51 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Francesca Palombini > Review result: Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-housley-hkdf-oids-01 > Reviewer: Francesca Palombini > Review Date: 2019-04-08 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-22 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC > > Major issues: N/A > > Minor issues: N/A > > Nits/editorial comments: N/A > > Other: IANA registration does not require the document to be on Standard track, > AFAIK. Is there a reason to go for Proposed Standard rather than Informational > in this doc? (Also considering RFC7107 is informational) > >
