Using the GOST 28147-89, GOST R 34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-94, and GOST R 34.10-2001 Algorithms with Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
draft-ietf-smime-gost-07

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    smime mailing list <ietf-smime@imc.org>, 
    smime chair <smime-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Using the GOST 28147-89, GOST R 
         34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-94 and GOST R 34.10-2001 algorithms with 
         the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)' to Proposed Standard 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Using the GOST 28147-89, GOST R 34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-94 and GOST R 
   34.10-2001 algorithms with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) '
   <draft-ietf-smime-gost-08.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley and Tim Polk.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-gost-08.txt

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

  This Internet Draft describes the conventions for using GOST (Russian
  national standard) set of symmetric cryptographic algorithms
  (signature, key management, and MAC) and their use with Cryptographic
  Message Syntax (CMS).  Object identifiers for algorithms, ASN.1 for
  parameters, and example encoded CMS messages are provided.

  Additional documents related to this Internet-Draft are:
     draft-popov-cryptopro-cpalgs-04.txt
     draft-ietf-pkix-gost-cppk-03.txt

Working Group Summary

  There was little list discussion of the Internet-Draft; however, there
  was working group member review provided primarily face-to-face
  discussions or via individual email messages.  The major comment was
  the lack of a standard for some aspects of the algorithms that would
  have made interoperable implementations difficult.  As a result, the
  authors introduced an individual submission to describe the missing
  aspects of the algorithms.  Minor readability comments were also
  addressed.

Protocol Quality

  Multiple independent implementations exist.

  This document was reviewed by Russ Housley for the IESG.

RFC Editor Note