Re: [Suit] [Rats] [sacm] CoSWID and EAT and CWT

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 02 December 2019 16:51 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 B617A120091; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:51:31 -0800 (PST)
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, 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 xNSWIOjLRlku; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE057120077; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D8C3818F; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:47:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7534B784; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:51:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "suit\@ietf.org" <suit@ietf.org>, sacm <sacm@ietf.org>, "rats\@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <F23B6DE1-3343-4553-AF1C-832EA7B7B238@arm.com>
References: <F23B6DE1-3343-4553-AF1C-832EA7B7B238@arm.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:51:27 -0500
Message-ID: <27435.1575305487@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/9Frqm1zG6mpbNSpBi5YM1Kcbukc>
Subject: Re: [Suit] [Rats] [sacm] CoSWID and EAT and CWT
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: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 16:51:32 -0000

Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com> wrote:
    > Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm not sure that I
    > understand the goal of using a CWT for a CoSWID or a SUIT
    > manifest. Would you be able to elaborate on why we should use CWT?

I'm also in need of a diagram of how CoSWID and SUIT manifests and RATS EAT
interact.   I feel that the (optional) layer of signature in the CoSWID is
causing us to lose the forest for the trees...

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [




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