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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

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.

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.)

Cheers,
S.