Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the 
following questions, which are also in the source file.

1) <!--[rfced] We have updated the short title that spans the header of
the PDF file to more closely match the title. Please let us know
of any objection.

Original:
   MUST NOT DNSSEC with ECC-GOST


Current:
   Deprecate Usage of ECC-GOST
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. 
-->


3) <!--[rfced] This document discusses no longer using the GOST R 34.10-2001
and GOST R 34.11-94 algorithms but only "GOST R 34.10-2001" is
mentioned in the first sentence of the Abstract. Is that
intended, or should GOST R 34.11-94 also be included?

Original:
   This document retires the use of GOST R 34.10-2001 (mnemonic "ECC-
   GOST") within DNSSEC.

Perhaps:
   This document retires the use of GOST R 34.10-2001 (mnemonic "ECC-
   GOST") and GOST R 34.11-94 within DNSSEC.
-->


4) <!--[rfced] We note that this document does not "update" RFC 5933 but
rather moves it to Historic status. For clarity, may we update
the Abstract to reflect this as shown below?

Current:
   RFC 5933 (now historic) defined the use of GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST
   R 34.11-94 algorithms with DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC).  This
   document updates RFC 5933 by deprecating the use of ECC-GOST.

Perhaps:
   RFC 5933 defined the use of the GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.11-94
   algorithms with DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). This document
   moves RFC 5933 to Historic status by deprecating the use of ECC-GOST.
-->


5) <!--[rfced] This sentence reads oddly as it sounds like the DNS
Security Extensions were documented in RFC 5933 yet there is a
reference to RFC 9364. For clarity, may we rephrase this as shown
below?

Original:
   The use of the GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.11-94 algorithms with
   the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC9364] was documented in
   [RFC5933].

Perhaps:
   The GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.11-94 algorithms are
   documented in [RFC5933] and their use with DNS Security
   Extensions (DNSSEC) is further described in [RFC9364].
-->


6) <!--[rfced] Would it be clearer to include the descriptive name "GOST
R 34.10-2001" (instead of the mnemonic "ECC-GOST") here for clarity?
We ask because "GOST R 34.11-94" was used in the previous paragraph.

Also, we updated "these algorithms" to "this algorithm" as we assume
it is referring to the ECC-GOST algorithm.

Original:
   The ECC-GOST [RFC5933] algorithm MUST NOT be used when creating
   DNSKEY and RRSIG records.  Validating resolvers MUST treat RRSIG
   records created from DNSKEY records using these algorithms as an
   unsupported algorithm.

Perhaps:
   The GOST R 34.10-2001 algorithm [RFC5933] MUST NOT be used when creating
   DNS Public Key (DNSKEY) and Resource Record Signature (RRSIG) records.
   Validating resolvers MUST treat RRSIG records created from DNSKEY
   records using this algorithm as an unsupported algorithm. 
-->


7) <!--[rfced] Section 5. For clarity, may we update this text to reflect
all of IANA's updates? Also, should "DEPRECATED" be added to the
Description column for "GOST R 34.11-94" (to match the entry for
"GOST R 34.10-2001 (DEPRECATED)") as shown below?

Current:
   IANA has set the "Use for DNSSEC Signing", "Use for DNSSEC
   Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", and "Implement for
   DNSSEC Validation" columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
   registry [DNSKEY-IANA] [RFC9904] to MUST NOT for ECC-GOST (12).  Note
   that the "Use for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for DNSSEC
   Delegation" columns were already set to MUST NOT.

   IANA has set the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC
   Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", and "Implement for
   DNSSEC Validation" columns in the "Digest Algorithms" registry
   [DS-IANA] to MUST NOT for GOST R 34.11-94 (3).  Note that the "Use
   for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation" columns
   were already set to MUST NOT.

Perhaps:
   IANA has updated the GOST R 34.10-2001 (12) entry in the "DNS
   Security Algorithm Numbers" registry [DNSKEY-IANA] [RFC9904] as
   follows: 

   Number: 12
   Description: GOST R 34.10-2001 (DEPRECATED)
   Mnemonic: ECC-GOST   
   Zone Signing: Y      
   Trans. Sec.: * 
   Use for DNSSEC Signing: MUST NOT
   Use for DNSSEC Validation: MUST NOT
   Implement for DNSSEC Signing: MUST NOT
   Implement for DNSSEC Validation: MUST NOT
   Reference: [RFC5933], [Change the status of GOST Signature 
     Algorithms in DNSSEC in the IETF stream to Historic], and RFC 9906

   Note that the "Use for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for DNSSEC 
   Delegation" columns were already set to MUST NOT.

   IANA has updated the GOST R 34.11-94 (3) entry in the "Digest Algorithms"
   registry [DS-IANA] [RFC9904] as follows:

   Value: 3
   Description: GOST R 34.11-94 (DEPRECATED)
   Use for DNSSEC Delegation: MUST NOT
   Use for DNSSEC Validation: MUST NOT
   Implement for DNSSEC Delegation: MUST NOT
   Implement for DNSSEC Validation: MUST NOT
   Reference: [RFC5933], [Change the status of GOST 
    Signature Algorithms in DNSSEC in the IETF stream to 
    Historic], and RFC 9906

   Note that the "Use for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation" 
   columns were already set to MUST NOT.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We updated the reference entries for the IANA
registries to reflect the names of the registries rather than the
registry group names to match the running text. Please let us
know of any objection.

Current:
   [DNSKEY-IANA]
              IANA, "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers>.

   [DS-IANA]  IANA, "Digest Algorithms",
              <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types>.
-->


9) <!--[rfced] Since most of the names in the Acknowledgments were in
alphabetical order, we reordered a few names so that the full
list is now in alphabetical order. If this is not desired, 
please let us know.

Original:
   The authors appreciate the comments and suggestions from the
   following IETF participants in helping produce this document: Mark
   Andrews, Steve Crocker, Brian Dickson, Thomas Graf, Russ Housely,
   Shumon Huque, Paul Hoffman, S Moonesamy, Peter Dickson, Peter
   Thomassen, Stefan Ubbink, Paul Wouters, Tim Wicinski, and the many
   members of the DNSOP working group that discussed this draft.

Current:
   The authors appreciate the comments and suggestions from the
   following IETF participants in helping produce this document: Mark
   Andrews, Steve Crocker, Brian Dickson, Peter Dickson, Thomas Graf,
   Paul Hoffman, Russ Housely, Shumon Huque, S. Moonesamy, Peter
   Thomassen, Stefan Ubbink, Tim Wicinski, Paul Wouters, and the many
   members of the DNSOP Working Group that discussed this
   specification.
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - To match the companion documents, we have added
expansions for the following abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC
7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review these and each expansion
in the document carefully to ensure correctness.

  DNS Public Key (DNSKEY)
  Delegation Signer (DS)
  Resource Record Signature (RRSIG)
-->


11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.  Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should 
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

Karen Moore
RFC Production Center


On Nov 3, 2025, at 6:07 PM, RFC Editor via auth48archive 
<[email protected]> wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2025/11/03

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [email protected] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9906.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9906.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9906.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9906.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9906-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9906-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9906-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9906

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9906 (draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost-07)

Title            : Deprecate usage of ECC-GOST within DNSSEC
Author(s)        : W. Hardaker, W. Kumari
WG Chair(s)      : Benno Overeinder, Ond?ej Surý

Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani


-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to