Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

"Spencer Dawkins" <> Mon, 15 February 2010 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE9933A79B3 for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:01:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E8OD2kZ0lKyR for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:01:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C143A7B85 for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:01:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from S73602b ( []) by (node=mrus4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MY7Qm-1NC8UH1nVo-00VU7n; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:02:33 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Spencer Dawkins <>
To:, Basil Dolmatov <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:52:57 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+vXKj4u+Xmo/68/Xmr/Aa0g1gKQKb7wbSLTXg s1q2ZaM+P3fe972ESGL0bX7lETGkyRmdvpcR0bLSzqpaguOaPk B//Y+zt8Q5SLCydLK6jWxfKOvYgmB4HozAuuBPgXIQ=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:01:09 -0000

On one point in this discussion...

I'm not saying that everyone will SEE it, but there actually is an errata 
process for RFCs, and the omission of the year-version suffix in RFC 4357 
seems like something that would be really helpful to submit an errata for.

Submission page is at

The errata link does show up on many hyperlinked versions of RFCs, so things 
aren't as bleak as they were ten years ago, to pick an interval.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin Rex" <>
To: "Basil Dolmatov" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

> > IMHO, rfc4357 should have been completely stripped from GOST R34.10-1994
> > before publication if what you describes really applies to this 
> > algorithm.
> I think that is a question to authors of RFC4357 and I think that
> corrections should be issued.

There is no correction process for RFCs.

Preferably the new document about GOST R34.10 signature algorithms
should be merged with rfc4357 into rfc4357bis, and this time the
GOST R34.10-1994 algorithm should only be mentioned in the Security
Considerations as having been completely retired/phased out in 2004.