Hiya,
I note that you didn't answer my question about actual use of gost and guess that's because you don't have that data to hand. I'm still interested in that if someone has info because grounding this in reality seems likely better. On 01/01/2021 16:38, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The status quo (standard required) will likely absorb a lot of time for the IETF if the WG decides to move the revised GOST forward. It will also probably land in the CFRG. Reducing the requirement to RFC required allows their document to be informational. The WG already has RFC 8624 that talks about what implementers should do with various algorithms. Clearly, it will need to be updated for the revised GOST regardless of whether the WG changes the IANA considerations. Also, as a reminder, this isn't only about GOST. In the coming years, there will be a raft of post-quantum signing algorithms with different signature and key size ratios that people will want adopted. Putting every one of them on standards track seems onerous to some of us.
Sure, I get all that, but the trade-off is between our time vs. some properties of the deployed DNS so it may or may not be that us spending time is the better/cheaper option overall even if that's a PITA for us. Personally I could more easily figure out my position on this if I knew how much gost was really in use. (If it's negligible, then one could argue that moving the current gost alg to historic or something might be the better option.) Cheers, S.
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
