IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-05

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Fri, 08 January 2010 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343AD3A68DE for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:35:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.046
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L9hJGeThTYVS for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:35:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com (brmea-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94A43A686B for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:35:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dm-central-02.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.5]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o08LZDJB020051 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 21:35:13 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-02.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id o08LZD1N054482 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:35:13 -0700 (MST)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o08LKEfT001384; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:20:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id o08LKDpi001383; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:20:13 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:20:13 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20100108212013.GC1061@Sun.COM>
References: <p06240810c76be77be756@[128.89.89.161]> <20100107222809.GA25747@shinkuro.com> <p06240818c76c1a38cbf8@[128.89.89.161]> <20100108144431.GB26259@shinkuro.com> <p06240812c76d0821dd1b@[10.20.30.158]> <20100108113528.gbmbl95nok8gsgwc@webmail.mit.edu> <566303C7-A4F9-48B2-93E4-3F16FA394430@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <566303C7-A4F9-48B2-93E4-3F16FA394430@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
Cc: secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:35:17 -0000

On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 01:10:14PM -0800, David McGrew wrote:
> I also agree with the compelling reasons that Steve and Paul have  
> articulated.

+1

> I'm confused about one point, though.  The IANA considerations section  
> in draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-06 asks for GOST R 34.10-2001 and  
> GOST R 34.11-94 to be registered as OPTIONAL.  Was there some  
> suggestion to make them mandatory?

"
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.
...
8.  IANA Considerations
...
                                     Zone    Trans.
   Value  Algorithm         Mnemonic Signing Sec.  References   Status
   {TBA1} GOST R 34.10-2001 GOST     Y       *     (this memo)  OPTIONAL
...
   Value   Algorithm        Status
   {TBA2}  GOST R 34.11-94  OPTIONAL
"

Section 6.1 and 8 are in conflict.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email