Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email protected]> writes: > I acknowledge that neither “retired” or “historic” are well defined. In my > view, "ECC-GOST" is already "retired". RFC5933 has historic status. > Additionally, even without this document making registry updates: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml > already records this code point as deprecated, “GOST R 34.10-2001 > (DEPRECATED)”.
[We responded to this already in the thread about 8624bis so I won't duplicate it here] > ** Section 1. > Thus, the use of GOST R 34.10-2001 (mnemonic GOST-ECC) and and GOST R > 34.11-94 is no longer recommended for use in DNSSEC [RFC9364]. > > -- Editorial. s/and and/ fixed! > > -- The text here says, “no longer recommended”, but in Section 2 a much strong > statement of “MUST NOT” is use. Those don’t seem congruent. The no longer recommended is an explanation, but the section 2 text is the actual standards mandate. > ** Section 1. The second sentence conflicts with the text in the first. > > -- “The use of GOST 34.10-2012 and GOST 34.11-2012 in DNSSEC is documented in > [RFC9558], …” > > -- “Note that this document does not change or discuss the use of GOST > 34.10-2012 and GOST 34.11-2012.” That's describing a *different* algorithm and that we're not talking about it. GOST...2012 vs GOST...2001. It can be confusing. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
