Re: [Cfrg] RFC 5742 conflict review for draft-dolmatov-kuznyechik

["Valery Smyslov" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Simon,

>>> I believe that publishing the document below would conflict with ongoing
>>> work in the IETF to provide secure block ciphers that we can use on the
>>> Internet.  It is not in the best interest of the IETF nor the Internet at large to
>>> publish RFCs of national ciphers if there is no immediate desire to use them
>>> in Internet protocols.
>>
>> As someone who's written more "let's document this so we can use it in
>> the IETF" RFC's than anyone else, let me ask you a question.  Is it
>> better to have it already written, available to use if needed, or
>> better to scramble and get something written just as the need arises?
>
> I believe you have to make a risk assessment.
> 
> In this case, I believe the risk that people implements and use this
> without understanding the consequences is far far greater than the minor
> advantage that there is an RFC available for citation in case a need
> arise.

I don't think we'll see a "GOST rush" among implementers if this RFC is published.
But as Yoav has pointed out there are groups of people who do want
to use this cipher.

> Remember that the text IS already written.  It is ready as a draft if we
> ever decide that GOST is the cipher we want to run on the Internet.

Some people do want to use it today.

> Also consider that AES isn't an RFC: the disadvantage of that does not
> seem to be stopping us from using it.

Situation with AES is different - it is documented in English.
Camellia is a better example - and it was published (RFC 3713).
Do you think that many people have implemented it since then
without understanding the consequences?

> To me, publishing this is distracting and steals momentum from other
> work the IETF is doing.

I don't think so.

> /Simon

Regards,
Valery Smyslov.