Return-Path: 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 138B4130F3F for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:15:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 REvFjYgUwjkY for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61903130EAC for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:15:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::b]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5EBFSHr026602; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:15:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.114] (p5DC7E3F3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.227.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4161Hz5w99zDXPG; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:15:27 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:15:27 +0200 Cc: suit X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 550667725.518422-b05173fd01fc38f45b12982edc46a2b9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Brendan Moran X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Suit] New preliminary information model draft X-BeenThere: suit@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Software Updates for Internet of Things List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:15:34 -0000 I believe MFT10 and its mitigations still confuse =E2=80=94 is the sender *authorized* to make claims about the firmware = image at hand for device X =E2=80=94 does the sender *intend* to make a claim about this firmware = destined for device X The first one can be supported by ACLs. But the sender may very well be authorized to make a claim, it may just = not want to, pertaining to device X. In general, signed claims may need destination verification. In a CWT, this is often done with the =E2=80=9Caud=E2=80=9D claim field. I have not made up my mind if something like that is enough here as well = or we need something more well structured for destination verification. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > On Jun 13, 2018, at 16:23, Brendan Moran = wrote: >=20 > I have uploaded a new information model draft to the suit-wg repo:=20 > = https://github.com/suit-wg/information-model/blob/v01/draft-ietf-suit-info= rmation-model.md >=20 > You can see the diff using Github=E2=80=99s comparison tool: > https://github.com/suit-wg/information-model/compare/master...v01 >=20 > Best Regards, > Brendan >=20 > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are = confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended = recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the = contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy = the information in any medium. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > Suit mailing list > Suit@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit