Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-housley-hkdf-oids-01

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B551200CD for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 07:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V2-6TPk-ZOKd for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 07:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B9991200B1 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 07:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4AF300AA6 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:09:12 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ORhG6aOYVHMl for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:09:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BCE7300250; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:09:10 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <155472429959.6358.9860068593108039597@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:27:27 -0400
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-housley-hkdf-oids.all@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BEC5A4A3-2F71-4C44-A25C-55C2EC337D4E@vigilsec.com>
References: <155472429959.6358.9860068593108039597@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qLdEaHQkMunxGXJFUwi7q86FGS0>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-housley-hkdf-oids-01
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 14:34:44 -0000

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@ietf.org> 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)
> 
>