On one point in this discussion...
I'm not saying that everyone will SEE it, but there actually is an errata
process for RFCs, and the omission of the year-version suffix in RFC 4357
seems like something that would be really helpful to submit an errata for.
Submission page is at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php.
The errata link does show up on many hyperlinked versions of RFCs, so things
aren't as bleak as they were ten years ago, to pick an interval.
Thanks,
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Rex" <mrex(_at_)sap(_dot_)com>
To: "Basil Dolmatov" <dol(_at_)cryptocom(_dot_)ru>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost
> IMHO, rfc4357 should have been completely stripped from GOST R34.10-1994
> before publication if what you describes really applies to this
> algorithm.
I think that is a question to authors of RFC4357 and I think that
corrections should be issued.
There is no correction process for RFCs.
Preferably the new document about GOST R34.10 signature algorithms
should be merged with rfc4357 into rfc4357bis, and this time the
GOST R34.10-1994 algorithm should only be mentioned in the Security
Considerations as having been completely retired/phased out in 2004.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf