Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

Michael Dillon wrote:
>> One of the problems with GOST is its lack of availability of
>> documentation/specification and the meaning, purpose and
>> characteristics of algorithm parameters.
> 
> A bit of Googling turned up this <http://vsegost.com/Catalog/96/9658.shtml>
> with scanned GIFs of ГОСТ Р34.10-1994. There is a link to the other one,
> ГОСТ Р34.10-2001 on that page as well. This does seem to document
> the parameters.
> 
> Is the real problem the lack of English language documentation?
> If so, I'm sure that the people who would like to use these algorithms
> could arrange for translations of the two documents, and perhaps even
> make that an individual submission as an Internet draft.

English translation, I don't believe, is the problem.  The following 
drafts are the English translations of the [GOST3410] and [GOST3411] 
references:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dolmatov-cryptocom-gost341194-07
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dolmatov-cryptocom-gost34102001-08
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dolmatov-cryptocom-gost2814789-06

>>  Whether and how much the -1994 version is
>> deprecated is also a complete mystery.
> 
> That may be explained by its use in card payment systems. As you may
> know if you follow the news, a Cambridge team has just found a HUGE hole
> in the UK's chip and pin payment system, but a subtext of that announcement
> is that other weaknesses documented in previous years still have not been fixed.
> Signature algorithms used in payment systems get embedded in all kinds
> of devices, and software systems, making it hard to deprecate stuff fast.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf