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

["Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[e-mail]>]

I concur with ‎Yoav. There is no conflict that I see. This RFC can be published.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
  Original Message  
From: Yoav Nir
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 08:56
To: Simon Josefsson
Cc: [e-mail]; Nevil Brownlee
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] RFC 5742 conflict review for draft-dolmatov-kuznyechik


> On 1 Feb 2016, at 3:09 PM, Simon Josefsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Hi.

There definitely is a desire to use this cipher. True, all potential users come from the same country, but that should not be blocking.

As a vendor, we often get a request to provide an IPsec and/or TLS implementation with GOST ciphers, and this is the new GOST cipher.

OTOH there is no RFC describing AES either. We usually point to a NIST document. Similarly, there are GOST documents describing kuznyechik. They are even referenced by the draft. So I’m not sure what this draft is supposed to accomplish. Is it merely an English translation? Regardless, this is an algorithm that is going to be used on the Internet and documenting it is a good thing. I don’t see how this interferes with our goal or providing secure block and streamish ciphers.

Yoav