Re: [Suit] Follow-up AD review on draft-ietf-suit-manifest-24

["Waltermire, David A. (Fed)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you to the authors for the big push to address Roman's comments!

Roman, how do you want us to handle the suit-install issue?

Regards,
Dave

From: Suit <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Brendan Moran
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 11:30 AM
To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Suit] Follow-up AD review on draft-ietf-suit-manifest-24

Hi Roman,

We have now published a new version of the SUIT Manifest. I believe it addresses all the remaining comments you have made.

The proposal that I have made on the list (suit-install changes from key 17 to key 20) is not currently addressed.

Best Regards,
Brendan



From: Suit <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Brendan Moran <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, 2 February 2024 at 15:18
To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Suit] Follow-up AD review on draft-ietf-suit-manifest-24
Hi Roman,

While there is more to do, I have a proposed update to make the mapping from RFC9124 to draft-ietf-suit-manifest clearer: https://github.com/suit-wg/manifest-spec/pull/133

More updates to come shortly.

Best Regards,
Brendan

From: Suit <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2023 at 01:12
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Suit] Follow-up AD review on draft-ietf-suit-manifest-24
Hi!

Thanks for all of the work to produce -24.  In the spirit of tracking where things stand, the following residual AD review feedback remains from the original on -22 (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/Ak_sFp1PaZcIRSol5Ge_xH2FN-w/) or -23 (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/MJNk7-SBiRrEPRugmZKTlwkQ9jA/).

** Section 5.3.4.  Editorial and introduced in -23: Per "see {#ovr-integrated}, are integrity-checked ...", there is misspelled Markdown reference.

** This document referenced RFC4122.  The bis for it, draft-ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bis, is in IESG review.  Consider if there is a reason why it could not be used instead.  This feedback come during other IESG reviews of documents referencing RFC4122.

** https://github.com/suit-wg/manifest-spec/issues/108 and

https://github.com/suit-wg/manifest-spec/issues/107 and


-- REQ.SEC.IMG.CONFIDENTIALITY (Section 4.3.12 of RFC9124)

The manifest information model MUST enable encrypted payloads.

...

Implemented by:  Encryption Wrapper (Section 3.20)

This document does not describe any mechanism to encrypt a payload.  Section 3 says:

This specification covers the core features of SUIT.  Additional
   specifications describe functionality of advanced use cases, such as:

   *  Firmware Encryption is covered in
      [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption]

However, this reference is not normative and isn't consider a core feature.
_______________________________________________
Suit mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit
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.
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.