[Suit] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-suit-manifest-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-suit-manifest-25: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-suit-manifest/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Holding a DISCUSS position on behalf of IANA to ensure the issue they raised
(currently shown in the tracker) is resolved.

I'm a little puzzled by the use of "nint" as a placeholder in some of the
registries.  I don't understand what's going on there, and 8.4.8 (where it's
apparently defined) didn't make it any clearer to me.  Can I get a little
clarification?

===

>From Orie Steele, incoming ART Area Director:

I have concerns with how i18n and unicode may interact with suite text strings
and suite URIs.  Particularly in the case of fetching remote content.

I am also concerned about the potential IDNA issues with how UUIDs are
constructed per Section 8.4.8.2.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The shepherd writeup doesn't include the reason that PS is the right status
here.

===

>From Orie Steele, incoming ART Area Director:

In the abstract:

This would be clearer if the first use of "IoT" were
expanded.  (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
does not mark either as "well-known".)

Side note, is "Internet of Things Software Update (IoTSU)" a relevant / useful
acronym here?

In Section 4.2 consider defining "pull parser", prior to using the term.

"The bootloader may add its own authentication, e.g. a Message Authentication
Code (MAC), to the manifest in order to prevent further verifications."

Why?

In Section 5.3.4 "see {#ovr-integrated}," seems to be an escaped reference.

Section 5.4

Comment: "Severable Elements", seems similar to selective disclosure and
elision, you might want to relate your definitions to other industry
terminology.

Section 6.2

"""
If a Recipient supports groups of interdependent components (a Component Set),
then it SHOULD verify that all Components in the Component Set are specified by
one update, """

Under what circumstances can a recipient benefit from not verifying all
components in the component set are specified by one update? (Why not MUST)

Noting Section 8.4.3 and Section 8.4.4 have internationalization considerations.

Section 8.4.8.10

'""
A URI Reference RFC3986 from which to fetch a resource, encoded as a text
string. """

I believe this precludes URI's that contain unicode, you might consider
borrowing some language from
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9525#name-identifying-application-ser

"""
The information used to create the class-id condition (see {{uuid-identifiers)
"""

Reference typo.

Section "8.4.5.1. SUIT_Component_Identifier"

I'd prefer to see unicode considerations in this section.

in Section 11.8

Are expired Internet drafts considered acceptable "stable references" for
"standards track range of point assignment"... If not, please give concrete
guidance to the experts regarding managing registrations of references that
expire.

"""
When specifications are not provided, the description provided needs to have
sufficient information to identify what the point is being used for. """

Sounds like you are asking for registries that are "Expert Review" not
"Specification Required", please confirm after reading:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8126#section-4.6

Extra text in each registry section, would make all this a lot clearer, as I
noted in the beginning of my comments.

In Section 11.9

Why not "application/suit-envelope+cose", under what circumstances can a suite
envelope be transmitted as application/cose ?

If there will never be other expressions that are not COSE,
"application/suit-envelope" seems fine.