Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons

Paul Hoffman <> Fri, 01 January 2021 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC523A09B5 for <>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:58:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Okufz3uNf5mF for <>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:58:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A145A3A09A4 for <>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:58:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by ( with ESMTPS id 101HwbZ9019255 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 1 Jan 2021 17:58:38 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.721.2; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:58:36 -0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.02.0721.006; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:58:36 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
CC: dnsop <>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 17:58:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_23BF500D-BD7E-4EB1-B5CE-3177D452BE77"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2021-01-01_07:2020-12-31, 2021-01-01 signatures=0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 17:58:45 -0000

On Jan 1, 2021, at 8:53 AM, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
> I note that you didn't answer my question about actual use
> of gost and guess that's because you don't have that data
> to hand. I'm still interested in that if someone has info
> because grounding this in reality seems likely better.

Correct, I have no such data, but others might. The .ru domain (and other domains where GOST might have any traction) are not open for research.

> On 01/01/2021 16:38, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> The status quo (standard required) will likely absorb a lot of time
>> for the IETF if the WG decides to move the revised GOST forward. It
>> will also probably land in the CFRG. Reducing the requirement to RFC
>> required allows their document to be informational.
>> The WG already has RFC 8624 that talks about what implementers should
>> do with various algorithms. Clearly, it will need to be updated for
>> the revised GOST regardless of whether the WG changes the IANA
>> considerations.
>> Also, as a reminder, this isn't only about GOST. In the coming years,
>> there will be a raft of post-quantum signing algorithms with
>> different signature and key size ratios that people will want
>> adopted. Putting every one of them on standards track seems onerous
>> to some of us.
> Sure, I get all that, but the trade-off is between our time
> vs. some properties of the deployed DNS so it may or may not
> be that us spending time is the better/cheaper option overall
> even if that's a PITA for us. Personally I could more easily
> figure out my position on this if I knew how much gost was
> really in use. (If it's negligible, then one could argue that
> moving the current gost alg to historic or something might be
> the better option.)

The WG has already adopted the revised GOST document as a WG item; what you are proposing (if the current use is negligible) would be in the opposite direction.

--Paul Hoffman