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 of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <email@example.com>, RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, smime mailing list <email@example.com>, smime chair <firstname.lastname@example.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
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.