IETF conflict review for draft-dolmatov-gost34102012
conflict-review-dolmatov-gost34102012-00

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2013-09-17
 00 Amy Vezza
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-dolmatov-gost34102012@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-dolmatov-gost34102012@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-dolmatov-gost34102012-00

The IESG has completed a review of draft-dolmatov-gost34102012-00
consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'GOST R 34.10-2012:
Digital Signature Algorithm'  as an
Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document
and IETF work.

The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they
merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the
ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-dolmatov-gost34102012/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dolmatov-gost34102012/

The process for such documents is described at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary
2013-09-17
 00 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the conflict review response
2013-09-17
 00 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2013-09-17
 00 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent
2013-09-12
 00 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2013-09-12
 00 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]


Using "/=" for "not equal" is a little counter-inuitive,
"!=" would be more common. Similarly, "\\" as used in
section 7, is more …
[Ballot comment]


Using "/=" for "not equal" is a little counter-inuitive,
"!=" would be more common. Similarly, "\\" as used in
section 7, is more often done with just a "\". But if
this notation was used in other GOST RFCs then its
probably better to be consistent with those.
2013-09-12
 00 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-09-12
 00 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-09-12
 00 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2013-09-12
 00 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-09-12
 00 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-09-11
 00 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-09-11
 00 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-09-10
 00 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2013-09-10
 00 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-09-09
 00 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2013-09-09
 00 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-09-09
 00 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-09-06
 00 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-09-05
 00 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-09-05
 00 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-09-05
 00 Sean Turner Created "Approve" ballot
2013-09-05
 00 Sean Turner State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review
2013-09-05
 00 Sean Turner New version available: conflict-review-dolmatov-gost34102012-00.txt
2013-08-27
 00 Sean Turner Removed telechat returning item indication
2013-08-27
 00 Sean Turner Telechat date has been changed to 2013-09-12 from 2013-08-29
2013-08-13
 00 Sean Turner Removed telechat returning item indication
2013-08-13
 00 Sean Turner Shepherding AD changed to Sean Turner
2013-08-13
 00 Sean Turner Telechat date has been changed to 2013-08-29 from 2013-08-15
2013-08-13
 00 Sean Turner State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd
2013-08-02
 00 Cindy Morgan
The draft draft-dolmatov-gost34102012-00
is ready for publication from the Independent Stream.
Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742.

The …
The draft draft-dolmatov-gost34102012-00
is ready for publication from the Independent Stream.
Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742.

The following is some background for this draft, please forward it
to IESG along with this request ...

Its abstract says:
This document is intended to be a source of information about the
Russian Federal standard for digital signatures (GOST R 34.10-2012),
which is one of the Russian cryptographic standard algorithms (called
GOST algorithms). Recently, Russian cryptography is being used in
Internet applications, and this document has been created as
information for developers and users of GOST R 34.10-2012 for digital
signature generation and verification.

It was reviewed for me by Peter Gutman.

A URL for its original Russian version is:

http://protect.gost.ru/v.aspx?control=8&baseC=-1&page=0&month=-1&year=-1&search=&RegNum=1&DocOnPageCount=15&id=172255

Thanks, Nevil (ISE)
2013-08-02
 00 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-08-15
2013-08-02
 00 Cindy Morgan IETF conflict review requested