Re: [Fud] Comment on draft-moran-fud-manifest-00

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Hi Thomas,

    > interesting idea.

    > As an optional feature I don't see a problem with it.

    > How exactly the approval process for applying a firmware update in a
    > particular product looks like will of course vary a lot. At the IOTSU
    > workshop we had people describing a healthcare setting where any code
    > changes need to go through certification first. In smart home
    > environments the firmware updates are most likely facing fewer
    > regulatory restrictions.

I think that the regulated (e.g. health-care) situation is different than
the security vs feature update situation.

In the regulated situation, I can see two ways to go about the process:
  a) devices have a built-in policy that requires signatures from X,Y and Z
     before they will apply them.

  b) devices have a built-in policy that will accept updates on from Z
     (the regulator)
     Z has a policy where it only reviews things once X and Y
     have signed.  Applying the signature from Z may remove the signature
     from X and Y (that's a space optimization only).
     As the device does not recognize X or Y, it would ignore those signatures.

Whereas, Thomas is suggesting that when any of X, Y or Z signs, it would
include some kind of flag (probably an OID?) saying the reason for the
update.
(Maybe we'd want to also have optional space for a URL pointing at update notes)

    > On 08/11/2017 12:37 AM, Thomas Eichinger wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> reading draft-moran-fud-manifest-00 I am wondering what people think
    >> about adding a component to the manifest classifying the described
    >> update as a security and/or feature update (others are imaginable) in
    >> a machine-readable manner.
    >>
    >> The use case I see is that users then can define rules to deploy
    >> security only updates in an automated timely fashion while being able
    >> to review others before. Similar to Directive.applyImmediately but not
    >> forced by the Author of the update.
    >>
    >> Any opinions on that?
    >>
    >> Best, Thomas
    >>
    >> _______________________________________________ Fud mailing list
    >> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fud
    >>

    > _______________________________________________ Fud mailing list
    > [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fud

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-