Re: [Cfrg] DNSSEC considering adopting GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.11-94

[Eric Rescorla <ekr at networkresonance.com>]

At Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:50:33 +0400,
Basil Dolmatov wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com ?????:
> 
> >>>
> >>> Those, who are willing to lend a copy can address me via e-mail.
> >> Shouldn't reliance on a non-public spec pretty much be a dealbreaker
> >> for standardization of an algorithm?
> >>
> >> -Ekr
> > 
> > 	Please.  the spec is public.  
> Yes.
> 
> One is public for fifteen years, other - for 8.
> 
> Everyone who is in charge of anything in cryptography or cryptanalysis 
> field *is* acquainted with these algorythms for long.

If by "acquainted with" you mean "know that they exist", sure.
If by "acquainted with" you mean that there's been enough serious
analysis to have an informed opinion about the strength of 
these algorithms, then no, not so much.


> For those who need a copy to refresh memories I am ready to present it.
> > Is there any rule in place that specifications
> > 	must be available in ENGLISH to be considered publically available?
> It is publicly available in C language for years, which is much more 
> international one than English <grin>.

Not really the same thing. If it were, we wouldn't bother
publishing standards.

-Ekr