Basil Dolmatov wrote:
Martin Rex пиÑ?еÑ?:
Whether and how much the -1994 version is
deprecated is also a complete mystery.
It is written in the text of GOST -2001
Which document are you refering to when you say "text of GOST -2001" ?
This document:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dolmatov-cryptocom-gost34102001-08
says
section 1.1:
4. GOST R 34.10-2001 replaces GOST R 34.10-94.
section 1,2:
GOST R 34.10-2001 is developed to replace GOST R 34.10-94.
2. GOST R 34.10-2001 was accepted and activated by the Act 380-st of
12.09.2001 issued by the Russian federal committee for standards.
...
4. GOST R 34.10-2001 replaces GOST R 34.10-94.
So, GOST -1994 for digital signature _is_ deprecated and replaced from
12.09.2001.
The transition period is not stated explicitly because it is obvious
from standard procedure of certification in Russia.
No certificate can be issued for any hardware/software using -1994
algorithm after 12.09.2001 and the certification period is 3 years.
So, after 12.09.2004 there can be no operating hardware/software using
-1994 algorithm.
That information OUGHT to have been added to rfc-4357 and it ought to be
added to draft-dolmatov-cryptocom-gost34102001-08.
I just found the following paragraph in the Copyright Notice of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dolmatov-cryptocom-gost34102001-08
on the title page which irritates me:
This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may
not be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Is there a new trend to have the IETF rubber stamp documents as is?
To me, this statement precludes editorial changes/corrections,
which doesn't sound right.
I boldly assumed the original name of the IETF documents "RFC"
mean "Request For Comment", in the form that the community was
asked for feedback (request for clarifications, correction or
changes) before document was published.
At least this is how I understand "The Tao of the IETF"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4677#section-8.1
Although the IETF may not have "change control" for the technical
contents described in informational document, a complete absence
of change control of document structure, clarity, detail of
explanation and editorial issues would come as a suprise to me...
-Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf