Use of GOST Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-07

[Ballot comment]
As per Olafur, there is WG consensus not to register the new hashing function in the IANA registry established by RFC 5155. So I am downgrading this to a COMMENT.


6.1.  Support for GOST signatures

  DNSSEC aware implementations SHOULD be able to support RRSIG and
  DNSKEY resource records created with the GOST algorithms as
  defined in this document.

Use of this SHOULD was debated in details on SecDir mailing list. People has suggested that this should be a MAY. I don't think a choice of SHOULD versa MAY actually matters in this case, because this document doesn't say that it "Updates" RFC 4034 (And I think it a good case should be made that it shouldn't include "Updates: RFC 4034".) and because the document clearly states that the newly registered algorithms are OPTIONAL to support.

Note that I also generally agree with concerns about introducing additional signature/hashing algorithms for use in DNSSEC, however I think that any DNSSEC policy on this is out of scope for the document. And the document is currently silent on this anyway.

[Ballot comment]
6.1.  Support for GOST signatures

  DNSSEC aware implementations SHOULD be able to support RRSIG and
  DNSKEY resource records created with the GOST algorithms as
  defined in this document.

Use of this SHOULD was debated in details on SecDir mailing list. People has suggested that this should be a MAY. I don't think a choice of SHOULD versa MAY actually matters in this case, because this document doesn't say that it "Updates" RFC 4034 (And I think it a good case should be made that it shouldn't include "Updates: RFC 4034".) and because the document clearly states that the newly registered algorithms are OPTIONAL to support.

Note that I also generally agree with concerns about introducing additional signature/hashing algorithms for use in DNSSEC, however I think that any DNSSEC policy on this is out of scope for the document. And the document is currently silent on this anyway.

[Ballot discuss]
[The DISCUSS part was updated as per draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-07.txt. The COMMENT part is the same and no action is required from authors.]

I generally have no objections to this work. But I have one issue that needs to be clarified/discussed before I can recommend approval of this document:

1) In Section 8 (IANA Considerations):

  This document updates the RFC 4034 Digest Types assignment
  (section A.2)by adding the value and status for the GOST R 34.11-94
  algorithm:

  Value  Algorithm        Status
  {TBA2}  GOST R 34.11-94  OPTIONAL

Does this also need registering in the IANA registry established by RFC 5155?

[Ballot discuss]
When I read
    it was
    chosen to send these blobs on the wire "as is" without
    transformation of endianness.

Do I understand this correctly that the byte order is not specified? Needless to say that does not sound interoperable to me.

[Ballot comment]
Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Vijay Gurbani
  on 19-Feb-2010:

  1) In the Abstract, the draft has references of the form
    "[DRAFT1, DRAFT2, DRAFT3]".  I would humbly suggest that
    these be removed from the Abstract and placed in the body
    of the document.  In their current form, these references
    appear, well ... temporary, given their names (DRAFT1, etc.)

    I have come across services that index IETF RFCs and also
    include the abstract in the index.  In that context, having an
    Abstract include references to seemingly impermanent
    placeholders appears disconcerting.  Note that references
    to RFC numbers themselves -- as the Abstract also shows -- is
    okay since RFC numbers denote some sort of permanence.

  2) The references "DRAFT1" etc. seem to best fit in
    Section 1, paragraph 4.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 6.1 says:
  >
  > DNSSEC aware implementations SHOULD be able to support RRSIG and
  > DNSKEY resource records created with the GOST algorithms as
  > defined in this document.
  >
  Yet, the IANA Considerations in Section 8 say that support for
  this algorithm is OPTIONAL.  These seem to be in conflict.  The
  'SHOULD' needs to be removed, and the sentence reworded to clearly
  state that support for this algorithm is OPTIONAL.

[Ballot discuss]
6.1.  Support for GOST signatures

  DNSSEC aware implementations SHOULD be able to support RRSIG and
  DNSKEY resource records created with the GOST algorithms as
  defined in this document.

There has been extensive discussion of this topic on the ietf and secdir lists.  IMHO, this document has demonstrated community consensus but with a "MAY support" rather than
a "MUST support".

[Ballot comment]
Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Vijay Gurbani
  on 19-Feb-2010:

  1) In the Abstract, the draft has references of the form
    "[DRAFT1, DRAFT2, DRAFT3]".  I would humbly suggest that
    these be removed from the Abstract and placed in the body
    of the document.  In their current form, these references
    appear, well ... temporary, given their names (DRAFT1, etc.)

    I have come across services that index IETF RFCs and also
    include the abstract in the index.  In that context, having an
    Abstract include references to seemingly impermanent
    placeholders appears disconcerting.  Note that references
    to RFC numbers themselves -- as the Abstract also shows -- is
    okay since RFC numbers denote some sort of permanence.

  2) The references "DRAFT1" etc. seem to best fit in
    Section 1, paragraph 4.

[Ballot comment]
6.1.  Support for GOST signatures

  DNSSEC aware implementations SHOULD be able to support RRSIG and
  DNSKEY resource records created with the GOST algorithms as
  defined in this document.

Use of this SHOULD was debated in details on SecDir mailing list. People has suggested that this should be a MAY. I don't think a choice of SHOULD versa MAY actually matters in this case, because this document doesn't say that it "Updates" RFC 4034 (And I think it a good case should be made that it shouldn't include "Updates: RFC 4034".) and because the document clearly states that the newly registered algorithms are OPTIONAL to support.

Note that I also generally agree with concerns about introducing additional signature/hashing algorithms for use in DNSSEC, however I think that any DNSSEC policy on this is out of scope for the document. And the document is currently silent on this anyway.

[Ballot discuss]
I generally have no objections to this work. But I have a couple of issues that need to be discussed before I can recommend approval of this document:

1) In Section 6.2:

    Any DNSSEC-GOST implementation is required to have either NSEC or
    NSEC3 support.

(COMMENT) I think this should use RFC 2119 language.

But more importantly, I think this is missing a Normative Reference to RFC 5155.
If that is the case, then you should also register the new hashing alrogithm in the following IANA registry:



2) In Section 8:

  This document updates the RFC 4034 Digest Types assignment
  (section A.2)by adding the value and status for the GOST R 34.11-94
  algorithm:

  Value  Algorithm        Status
  {TBA2}  GOST R 34.11-94  OPTIONAL

I think you meant the following IANA registry:
? Can you please confirm.

IANA questions/comments:

ACTION 1:

make a new assignment in the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml

Number: TBA1
Description: GOST R 34.10-2001
Mnemonic: GOST
ZoneSigning: Y
Trans.Sec.: *
Reference: [RFC-dnsext-dnssec-gost-06]

QUESTION: Section 8 requests an assignment for DNSSEC algorithm numbers.
The request contains the column "Status" with the value "OPTIONAL".
Currently, the registry does not contain such column. Should IANA ignore
this column or create a new column in the registry?


ACTION 2:

make a new assignment in the "Digest Algorithms" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml

Value: TBA2
Description: GOST R 34.11-94
Status: OPTIONAL
Reference: [RFC-dnsext-dnssec-gost-06]

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Olafur Gudmundsson DNSEXT co-chair.
This version has addressed all issues raised in the working group last
call and the document is ready for publication.


    (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?
Yes it has.
No concerns about quality of review.

    (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

This document should be reviewed by the security area.


    (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

There was some push back as to if this document should be published
on standards
track or informational.  This document is making registrations in
registries that
require Standards action, thus only Standards track documents can perform these
registrations. The working group is comfortable with Standards track.


    (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

This is always hard to judge, the core members of the working group seem to
understand the issues and discussing this document brought in new
participants.
My understanding is that the average WG members sees no problem or issue in
this becoming an RFC.


    (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No,

    (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Yes, I have checked the document, no nits.



    (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes references are split.
Normative references 4357 is informational but that RFC is in
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry
thus IMHO this is OK.



    (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document IANA actions are clearly identified.


    (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

YES

    (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
              and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
              or introduction.

This document defines the use of new digital signature algorithm, the
specifications
of this algorithm was originally published in Russian but an English
translation
is in the RFC editors queue.
The document describes how to publish a public key in a DNSKEY record, how
to convert the public key into a construct used by crypto libraries, and how
to generate digital signature and publish it in a RRSIG.

The documents further describes how to publish an authorizing DS record for a
DNSKEY using a corresponding digest algorithms.


          Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
              For example, was there controversy about particular points
              or were there decisions where the consensus was
              particularly rough?

The consensus for this document is strong.

          Document Quality
              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
              significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
              implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
              merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
              e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
              conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
              there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
              what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
              Review, on what date was the request posted?

This document has been reported by few DNS implementors to be clear
enough to be
implementable. There have been changes in the wire format between the
different
versions, using random testing codes for IANA requested values.
This document is similar in many respects to RFC5702 and RFC 4509
as the DNS inter operability issues are identical.
The only difference is the underlying technologies, RSA/SHA2
vs GOST R 34.10-2001/GOST R 34.11-94.



          Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
              Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
              experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
              in this document are .'

Document Shepherd is: Olafur Gudmundsson
AD: Ralph Droms

        Olafur and Andrew