rfc9558v3.txt		rfc9558.txt
	Independent Submission B. Makarenko		Independent Submission B. Makarenko
	Request for Comments: 9558 The Technical center of Internet, LLC		Request for Comments: 9558 The Technical center of Internet, LLC
	Category: Informational V. Dolmatov, Ed.		Category: Informational V. Dolmatov, Ed.
	ISSN: 2070-1721 JSC "NPK Kryptonite"		ISSN: 2070-1721 JSC "NPK Kryptonite"
	March 2024		April 2024
	Use of GOST 2012 Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource		Use of GOST 2012 Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource
	Records for DNSSEC		Records for DNSSEC
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes how to produce digital signatures and hash		This document describes how to produce digital signatures and hash
	functions using the GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012		functions using the GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012
	algorithms for DNSKEY, RRSIG, and DS resource records, for use in the		algorithms for DNSKEY, RRSIG, and DS resource records, for use in the
	Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC).		Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC).
	skipping to change at line 308 ¶		skipping to change at line 308 ¶
	+=======+===================+==========+===========+		+=======+===================+==========+===========+
	| 5 | GOST R 34.11-2012 | OPTIONAL | RFC 9558 |		| 5 | GOST R 34.11-2012 | OPTIONAL | RFC 9558 |
	+-------+-------------------+----------+-----------+		+-------+-------------------+----------+-----------+
	Table 2		Table 2
	8. Security Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	It is recommended to use a dual KSK algorithm signed zone until GOST-		It is recommended to use a dual KSK algorithm signed zone until GOST-
	aware DNSSEC software becomes more widespread, unless GOST-only		aware DNSSEC software becomes more widespread, unless GOST-only
	cryptography is required. Otherwise, GOST-signed zones may be		cryptography is to be used. Otherwise, GOST-signed zones may be
	considered unsigned by the DNSSEC software currently in use.		considered unsigned by the DNSSEC software currently in use.
	Currently, the cryptographic resistance of the GOST R 34.10-2012		Like all algorithms, it is possible that a significant flaw could be
	digital signature algorithm is estimated as 2^128 operations of		discovered with GOST R 34.11-2012. In that case, deployments should
	multiple elliptic curve point computations on a prime modulus of		roll over to another algorithm. See RFC 7583 [RFC7583] on the timing
	order 2^256.		of such changes.
	Currently, the cryptographic collision resistance of the GOST R
	34.11-2012 hash algorithm is estimated as 2^128 operations of
	computations of a step hash function.
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	skipping to change at line 362 ¶		skipping to change at line 358 ¶
	[RFC6986] Dolmatov, V., Ed. and A. Degtyarev, "GOST R 34.11-2012:		[RFC6986] Dolmatov, V., Ed. and A. Degtyarev, "GOST R 34.11-2012:
	Hash Function", RFC 6986, DOI 10.17487/RFC6986, August		Hash Function", RFC 6986, DOI 10.17487/RFC6986, August
	2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6986>.		2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6986>.
	[RFC7091] Dolmatov, V., Ed. and A. Degtyarev, "GOST R 34.10-2012:		[RFC7091] Dolmatov, V., Ed. and A. Degtyarev, "GOST R 34.10-2012:
	Digital Signature Algorithm", RFC 7091,		Digital Signature Algorithm", RFC 7091,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7091, December 2013,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7091, December 2013,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7091>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7091>.
			[RFC7583] Morris, S., Ihren, J., Dickinson, J., and W. Mekking,
			"DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations", RFC 7583,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC7583, October 2015,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7583>.
	[RFC7836] Smyshlyaev, S., Ed., Alekseev, E., Oshkin, I., Popov, V.,		[RFC7836] Smyshlyaev, S., Ed., Alekseev, E., Oshkin, I., Popov, V.,
	Leontiev, S., Podobaev, V., and D. Belyavsky, "Guidelines		Leontiev, S., Podobaev, V., and D. Belyavsky, "Guidelines
	on the Cryptographic Algorithms to Accompany the Usage of		on the Cryptographic Algorithms to Accompany the Usage of
	Standards GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012",		Standards GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012",
	RFC 7836, DOI 10.17487/RFC7836, March 2016,		RFC 7836, DOI 10.17487/RFC7836, March 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7836>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7836>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
End of changes. 4 change blocks.
	10 lines changed or deleted		11 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.