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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf