Re: [Suit] Parameters and Commands

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 27 February 2020 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744423A0D03; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:02:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z-2Z0bffkdOI; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C65F93A0D07; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660DE38982; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:01:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EB9F1002; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:02:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Brendan Moran <>
cc: suit <>, Koen Zandberg <>,, Emmanuel Baccelli <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
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-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:02:41 -0500
Message-ID: <26361.1582840961@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Suit] Parameters and Commands
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 27 Feb 2020 22:02:46 -0000

Brendan Moran <> wrote:
    > We have also discussed the possibility of defining attestation policy
    > within SUIT. This would mean that we need flags to indicate to the
    > parser which measurements should be reported. For example, a Vendor ID,
    > an image digest, or a component offset might need to be reported in the
    > attestation report. Each of these is checked by a condition. Each of
    > those conditions will consume a parameter under this model. Then, the
    > argument can indicate: report a measurement, do not report a
    > measurement, report a measurement only if comparison is successful, or
    > perhaps other attestation-related policies. Bear in mind that attesting
    > a failed condition may be helpful for attesting why a manifest has
    > failed, as we discussed in the hackathon and virtual interim meeting.

Just a note that I think we are avoiding the term "attesting a X",
The RATS architecture would term all of this as providing Evidence.
It completely makes sense to provide Evidence on a failed condition.

    > If we are making the majority of commands are using parameters instead
    > of arguments, this becomes trivial: the arguments are replaced with
    > attestation policy arguments. This allows us to tell the attestation
    > engine explicitly what to report from the manifest, which allows
    > secure, dynamically updatable attestation policy.

It seems like all of this has to go into the base document.
I don't think the SUIT document needs to mention the Evidence format
directly, does it?

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-