Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

I agree with Steve and others saying that MAY is appropriate
for this.

S.

Stephen Kent wrote:
> I recommend that the document not be approved by the IESG in its current
> form.  Section 6.1 states:
> 
>> 6.1.  Support for GOST signatures
>>
>>    DNSSEC aware implementations SHOULD be able to support RRSIG and
>>    DNSKEY resource records created with the GOST algorithms as
>>    defined in this document.
> 
> There has been considerable discussion on the security area directorate
> list about this aspect of the document. All of the SECDIR members who
> participated in the discussion argued that the text in 6.1 needs to be
> changed to MAY from SHOULD. The general principle cited in the
> discussion has been that "national" crypto algorithms like GOST ought
> not be cited as MUST or SHOULD in standards like DNESEC. I refer
> interested individuals to the SECDIR archive for details of the discussion.
> 
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/maillist.html)
> 
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 