IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Suit] Review of draft-ietf-suit-manifest-09

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 30 July 2020 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2EDB3A0D0B for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ffd2w6Ld_SUj for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85A043A10E4 for <suit@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9675D389B0; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:23:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 2weDAPSOkvSt; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:23:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C284389A0; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:23:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED0235C; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com>
cc: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, suit <suit@ietf.org>, "Waltermire, David A. (Fed)" <david.waltermire@nist.gov>
In-Reply-To: <47ADA831-3033-4901-B652-749940E0EC7F@arm.com>
References: <BL0PR2101MB1027152EC8DAD9B3847C3E89A3770@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <70453005-8DFA-4DBE-8C04-9882839D5005@arm.com> <3ff3915e-c61c-2c00-f780-a77c9ab494cc@sit.fraunhofer.de> <CH2PR09MB425185528F6ECB5E00B4CB07F0720@CH2PR09MB4251.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <4d3ed839-c495-0c47-fcbb-931944166090@sit.fraunhofer.de> <47ADA831-3033-4901-B652-749940E0EC7F@arm.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:44:15 -0400
Message-ID: <13062.1596131055@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/-wujuBp_Q8TZ6CXlRY2Klha-OhM>
Subject: Re: [Suit] Review of draft-ietf-suit-manifest-09
X-BeenThere: suit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Software Updates for Internet of Things <suit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/suit/>
List-Post: <mailto:suit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:44:52 -0000

Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com> wrote:
    > 1.  Class IDs should be UUIDs.
    > 2.  UUIDs require a Name Space ID.
    > 3.  The Name Space ID should be unique per-vendor.
    > 4.  There must be a way to convert a vendor identifier to a Name Space ID in a consistent way.

    > OUI does not provide this.
    > PEN might provide this, but it would require a specification of the
    > correct encoding to use when creating a UUID from an OID. This is
    > missing in RFC4122, despite the inclusion of NAMESPACE_OID.

I'm looking at section 8.7.5.1 to try to understand things.
It seems that rather than have VendorID be hash of DNS_PREFIX,
why not just have it be a PEN, encoded as a cbor integer?
(Not an OID, just the PEN)

You could permit a bstr or integer here, so for those that have some kind of
concern about identifying the vendor, they can go with hash of something.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email