IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Thu, 18 June 2020 04:07 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE333A0E1C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 21:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QdULKt2vWEJp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 21:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A3A33A0E1B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 21:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (dhcp-166.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.166]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (1024 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89B93B07D0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 04:07:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 03:53:55 +0000
Message-ID: <3047303.nHtsAoxXlC@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <68eb8413-8704-40a3-9765-7eb19ebd0e78@www.fastmail.com>
References: <CADyWQ+H4713BnZDntTuVW0FrO59zZ9NFJ=J=n9JFFq2zmfy2pQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADqLbzJsJ6etv-eZuabLsMO4g+XYgktgpuP-fTNSi1cFTwdOGg@mail.gmail.com> <68eb8413-8704-40a3-9765-7eb19ebd0e78@www.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nDzPBkcnpRelX0OJMjfMUGryY8k>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 04:07:36 -0000

ships are passing in the night on this topic. GOST is what the russian 
government has to use for its crypto. if GOST is not a standard, then the 
russian federation's government won't be using DNSSEC, or they'll do it with a 
pirated code point. neither of those is desirable and there's no third way.

IETF has not been ruled by good engineering for many years now. the rule for 
publication of a standards document now is, if you want to do "this thing", 
here is a way to do it interoperably.

even known-bad ideas get consensus sometimes. (including some of mine, fwiw.) 
there is nothing particularly bad about GOST. we cannot hold it back based on 
some long-dead ideal Internet System having minimum complexity.

i'm in favour of adoption, and will review.

vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email