Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9558 <draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec-05> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


2) <!--[rfced] May we remove the expansion, as GOST has not previously been 
expanded in RFCs, and our understanding is GOST is more recognizable than 
"GOsudarstvennyy STandart"?

Original:
   Algorithms GOsudarstvennyy STandart(GOST) R 34.10-2012 and GOST R
   34.11-2012 are Russian national standards.

Perhaps:
   GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012 are Russian national standards.  
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt) 
does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us
know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not
set.  

In addition, review each artwork element. Specifically,
should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or another
element?
-->


4) <!--[rfced] Section 2.1: 
a) For clarity, may we remove the word "algorithm"?
b) Does 'Parameter set A" refer to the same mentioned in Section 2,
i.e., id-tc26-3410-2012-256-paramSetA parameter set defined in RFC 7836? 
If so, may this text be updated as follows or otherwise?

Original:
   The OIDs in the structure above represent GOST R 34.10-2012 public
   key with 256 bits private key length algorithm and Parameter set A.

Perhaps:
   The OIDs in the structure above represent a GOST R 34.10-2012 public
   key with a 256-bit private key length and parameter set A.

For comparison, we note that similar text in RFC 9215 does not include 
the word "algorithm":
   GOST R 34.10-2012 public keys with a 512-bit private key length are
   identified by the following OID:


Also, would you like to add "parameter set A" in Section 2 as follows,
so that the reader knows what Section 2.1 is referring to?

Original:
   We select the parameters for the digital signature
   algorithm to be id-tc26-gost-3410-2012-256-paramSetA as specified in
   RFC 7836 [RFC7836].

Perhaps:
   We select the parameters for the digital signature
   algorithm to be id-tc26-gost-3410-2012-256-paramSetA as specified in
   RFC 7836 [RFC7836]; this document refers to it as "parameter set A".
-->


5) <!--[rfced] FYI, the placement of the line break was altered so that the 
example would fit the line-length limitation without the removal of the 
left-hand indentation. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.

Original:
Private-key-format: v1.2
Algorithm: TBA1 (ECC-GOST12)
Gost12Asn1: MD4CAQAwFwYIKoUDBwEBAQEwCwYJKoUDBwECAQEBBCD/Mw9o6R5lQHJ13jz0
            W+C1tdsS4W7RJn04rk9MGJq3Hg==

Current:
   Private-key-format: v1.2
   Algorithm: 23 (ECC-GOST12)
   Gost12Asn1: MD4CAQAwFwYIKoUDBwEBAQEwCwYJKoUDBwECAQEBBCD/Mw9o6R5lQHJ13
               jz0W+C1tdsS4W7RJn04rk9MGJq3Hg==
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] RFC 5208 has been obsoleted by RFC 5958.  May we replace 
the informative reference RFC 5208 with RFC 5958? If so, what section
number should be used?

Original:
   The private key here is presented in PrivateKeyInfo ASN.1 structure,
   as described in RFC5208 [RFC5208], Section 5.
-->


7) <!--[rfced] Regarding your note below, the numbers 23 and 5 were assigned, 
so it does not seem that recalculation is needed. Please review.

Original:
   [RFC Editor note: Note: Algorithm numbers 23 and 5 are used as an
   example in this document, as actual numbers have not yet been
   assigned.  If the assigned values will differ, the example keys and
   signatures will have to be recalculated before the official
   publication of the RFC.]
-->


8) <!--[rfced] Vasily, regarding the postal address, is it necessary
to list your organization twice, or may the second instance be removed?
Also, may we update to typical abbreviations for building (Bldg.) 
and street (St.)?

Original:
   Vasily Dolmatov (editor)
   JSC "NPK Kryptonite"
   Spartakovskaya sq., 14, bld 2, JSC "NPK Kryptonite"
   Moscow
   105082

Perhaps:
   Vasily Dolmatov (editor)
   JSC "NPK Kryptonite"
   Spartakovskaya Sq., 14, Bldg. 2
   Moscow
   105082

Original:
   8 marta str., 1, bld 12

Perhaps:
   8 Marta St., 1, Bldg. 12
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ar


On Mar 7, 2024, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/03/07

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9558

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9558 (draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec-05)

Title            : Use of GOST 2012 Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC
Author(s)        : B. Makarenko, V. Dolmatov, Ed.