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

[Alice Russo <[e-mail]>]

Authors, Eliot,

Thank you for your replies; please see one follow-up below. The revised files are here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558.xml

This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9558-auth48diff.html


Please reply to #6. We have updated the text to RFC 5958; please provide the section number if you want to include that.  Also, does the sentence need any updates for accuracy?
RFC 5958 states:
    Changed the name "PrivateKeyInfo" to "OneAsymmetricKey".

> 
> 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.                                                
> -->



We will wait to hear from you again before continuing the publication 
process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9558

Thank you.
RFC Editor/ar

On Mar 7, 2024, at 2:26 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> 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 8, 2024, at 3:51 AM, Boris Makarenko <bmakarenko=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Eliot, RFC editor:
> 
> I have no objection to adding this text to the the end of Section 1 of the document. We're completely okay with that. 
> 
> 
>>> Caution:
>>> 
>>> This specification is not a standard and does not have IETF community consensus.  It makes use of a cryptographic algorithm that is a national standard for Russia. Neither the IETF nor the IRTF has analyzed that algorithm for suitability for any given application, and it may contain either intended or unintended weaknesses.
>>> 
> I also agree with all the edits proposed by RFC editor.
> 
> So, I approve the publication of the RFC.
> 
> Thank you all for your work.
> 
> Boris
> 
> 
> 
> 08.03.2024 09:53, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) пишет:
>> Authors, RPC:
>> 
>> Since this document entered the RFC Editor queue, the independent submissions editor has been in discussions with the IAB and the editorial board about national cryptography.  The following text should be added to the end of Section 1 of this document.
>> 
>>> Caution:
>>> 
>>> This specification is not a standard and does not have IETF community consensus.  It makes use of a cryptographic algorithm that is a national standard for Russia. Neither the IETF nor the IRTF has analyzed that algorithm for suitability for any given application, and it may contain either intended or unintended weaknesses.
>>> 
>> Note: this is not a reflection on any particular country and will be equally applied to all national cryptography, nor is it a reflection of any specific cryptographic quality in GOST.
>> 
>> Authors, I apologize for how late in this process this change is being requested, but that was due to the timing of         discussions with the IAB and my editorial board.
>> 
>> Eliot
>> On 07.03.2024 23:25, [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.
>>> 
>>>