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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 1, 2021, at 8:53 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> 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