Re: [Ace] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ace-usecases-09: (with COMMENT)

[Ludwig Seitz <[e-mail]>]

On 2015-10-23 17:21, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Stefanie Gerdes <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>>>> 1. Software update is really needed and often missing and
>>>>> usually hard. There's at least a need to authenticate and
>>>>> authorize new firmware, when there is any update. That may
>>>>> not be the same as authorizing a new config.
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't this covered in section 2.4.1.3. ?
>>>
>>> "At some point the facility management company wants to update
>>> the firmware of lighting devices in order to eliminate software
>>> bugs. Before accepting the new firmware, each device checks the
>>> authorization of the facility management company to perform this
>>> update."
>>>
>>> There is simply not a specific authorization problem listed for
>>> this, I could argue that it is subsumed under U4.4 but if you
>>> think it deserves specific mention under the problems section I
>>> can live with adding a point.
>>
>> I think adding a point in 2.4.3 is a good idea. We could also add
>> an item to 3.3 that emphasizes the problem.
>>
>
> Great, I think adding a point would be helpful.  You'd be
> authenticating the device to receive the update preventing fraud,
> which is different from the existing point referenced.
>

Hello Kathleen,

I'm a bit puzzled by this last sentence. That is not at all how I read 
Stephen's comment, which was, in my understanding, all about 
authenticating and authorizing the software update, not the receiver of 
the update.

Now obviously, authenticating the receiver of a software update is not a 
bad idea either, but do you think this also requires specific mention?

/Ludwig


-- 
Ludwig Seitz, PhD
SICS Swedish ICT AB
Ideon Science Park
Building Beta 2
Scheelevägen 17
SE-223 70 Lund

Phone [phone]
http://www.sics.se