Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-09

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

I had to go full on gmail/html to actually see what your comments were.
Readers in the archive might be lost, and I hope my reply highlights all of
your comments.

Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> Perhaps change: This is contrasted with ... => This contrasts this
    >> with an alternative situation where the vehicle is parked at, for
    >> instance, a remote cabin, where an upgrade failure could cause a much
    >> greater inconvenience.

    mcr> Changed to:

    mcr> } A vehicle owner may desire only to perform software upgrades when
    mcr> they are } at their residence.  Should there be a problem, they could
    mcr> make alternate } arrangements for transportation.  } This contrasts
    mcr> with an alternative situation where the vehicle is parked } at, for
    mcr> instance, a remote cabin, where an upgrade failure could cause a much
    mcr> } greater inconvenience.

    mcr> It's sad that this is no longer a hypothetical situation :-(

    RW> Thanks.  I’ve noticed that I proposed text uses where … where.  I
    RW> hence, I suggest changing the second one to “and where”.

Added "and where an upgrade failure..."

    >> (14) p 5, sec 4.1.  Leveraging the manufacturer signature The trust
    >> and acceptance of the first signer may come from many sources, for
    >> example, it could be manual configured to trust which signer, or using
    >> the IDevID mechanism for the first MUD URL and the signer of the
    >> corresponding MUD file is more trustworthy, or the MUD controller can
    >> use a Trust on First Use (TOFU) mechanism and trusts the first signer
    >> by default.

    >> "... manual configured to trust which signer" doesn't scan well.
    >> Perhaps something like "... manually configured to trust particular
    >> signers, or, as a more trustworthy approach, use the IDevID mechanism
    >> for the first MUD URL and as the signed of the corresponding MUD file,
    >> "?

    mcr> I've rewritten it slightly.  I think that the signer can only be TOFU
    mcr> if the URL came from a trusted source, such as IDevID.  But, a URL
    mcr> that came from an untrusted source could be acceptable if the signer
    mcr> is from a configured trust anchor.
    mcr> https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls/commit/7841c7c

    RW> Okay, but please tweak “The first signature be Trust” to “The first
    RW> signature could be Trust” in the last changed sentence.

now reads:

} The trust and acceptance of the first signer may come from many sources.
} The first signature could be from a manually configured trust anchor in the MUD controller.
} The first signature could be Trust on First Use (TOFU), with the URL coming
} from a trusted IDevID certificate.

    >> Grammar warnings from tooling:

    >> Grammar Warnings: Section: 3.1, draft text: It is probably undesirable
    >> to perform any upgrade to an airplane outside of its service facility.
    >> Warning: This phrase is redundant. Consider using outside.  Suggested
    >> change: "outside"

    mcr> I don't get this suggestion.

    RW> The suggestion is to use “outside the
    RW> service facility” rather than “outside of …”  Thanks, Rob

Now reads:

} It is probably undesirable to perform any upgrade to an airplane outside the service facility.

As the changes are really minor I will post a new version when I receive
those DISCUSS comments.


-- 
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide