[Suit] draft-moran-suit-mud

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Brendan:

We were trying to do things in parallel.  Now that the re-charter is approved, the adoption of the MUD document can take place.  Please post draft-ietf-suit-mud-00.
 
For the SUIT WG Chairs,
   Russ
 
 
> On Dec 17, 2021, at 1:33 PM, The IESG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> The Software Updates for Internet of Things (suit) WG in the Security
> Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information,
> please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.
> 
> Software Updates for Internet of Things (suit)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> Current status: Active WG
> 
> Chairs:
>  Dave Thaler <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>  David Waltermire <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>  Russ Housley
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> Assigned Area Director:
>  Roman Danyliw <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> Security Area Directors:
>  Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>  Roman Danyliw <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> Mailing list:
>  Address: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  To subscribe: 
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww>.
> ietf.org <http://ietf.org/>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsuit&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cdthaler%40micr
> osoft.com <http://osoft.com/>%7C72a959d09aa84170b33f08d9c18e8aaa%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
> cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637753640242000556%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo
> iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp
> ;sdata=6V6lh1wdN%2FMIroEcyAt3So2A8ifE46sWFDNMxebzS58%3D&amp;reserved=0
>  Archive: 
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail>
> archive.ietf.org <http://archive.ietf.org/>%2Farch%2Fsearch%2F%3Femail_list%3Dsuit&amp;data=04%7C
> 01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com <http://40microsoft.com/>%7C72a959d09aa84170b33f08d9c18e8aaa%7C72f9
> 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637753640242000556%7CUnknown%7C
> TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC
> I6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=7kAfFvfyMR7y1RSEsSVPVkqlLrxuSpA4J6Ejrc%2FOlk
> g%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 
> Group page: 
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata>
> tracker.ietf.org <http://tracker.ietf.org/>%2Fgroup%2Fsuit%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cdthaler%40micros
> oft.com <http://oft.com/>%7C72a959d09aa84170b33f08d9c18e8aaa%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd
> 011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637753640242000556%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiM
> C4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;s
> data=nykpu2G3gJbI0uQGo1bnaM6uo8fTN3yJyxdjcWiwlZw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 
> Charter: 
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata>
> tracker.ietf.org <http://tracker.ietf.org/>%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-suit%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cdthal
> er%40microsoft.com <http://40microsoft.com/>%7C72a959d09aa84170b33f08d9c18e8aaa%7C72f988bf86f141
> af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637753640242000556%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3
> d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7
> C3000&amp;sdata=YnBkFLPYC5Nld83i1STFJnDUDNgmkiy3JCa3JQfwEfA%3D&amp;res
> erved=0
> 
> Vulnerabilities in Internet of Things (IoT) devices have raised the
> need for a secure firmware update mechanism that is also suitable for
> constrained devices.  Security experts, researchers, and regulators
> recommend that all IoT devices be equipped with such a mechanism. 
> While there are many proprietary firmware update mechanisms in use
> today, there is no modern interoperable approach allowing secure
> updates to firmware in IoT devices. In June 2016, the Internet
> Architecture Board organized a workshop on 'Internet of Things (IoT)
> Software Update (IOTSU)', and RFC 8240 documents various requirements and challenges that are specific to IoT devices.
> 
> A firmware update solution consists of several components, including:
> * A mechanism to transport firmware images to compatible devices.
> * A manifest that provides meta-data about the firmware image (such as
> a  firmware package identifier, the hardware the package needs to run,
> and  dependencies on other firmware packages), as well as
> cryptographic  information for protecting the firmware image in an end-to-end fashion.
> * The firmware image itself.
> 
> The SUIT WG is defining a firmware update solution (taking into
> account past learning from RFC 4108 and other proprietary firmware
> update solutions) that are usable on Class 1 (as defined in RFC 7228)
> devices, i.e., devices with
> ~10 KiB RAM and ~100 KiB flash.  The solution may apply to more
> capable devices as well.  The SUIT WG is not defining any new
> transport or discovery mechanisms, but may describe how to use
> existing mechanisms within the architecture.
> 
> The SUIT WG has already completed work on two documents:
> * An IoT firmware update architecture.
> * An information model for the SUIT manifest.
> 
> Now that the information model is complete, the SUIT WG has selected
> the CBOR serialization format and the associated COSE cryptographic
> mechanisms to encode the SUIT manifest. The SUIT WG may consider a
> small number of additional formats in the future; however, to reduce
> the complexity of a firmware management solution, a very small number
> of formats is preferred to enable SUIT maifest integration and
> interoperability with other IoT technologies and ecosystems.  To
> support a wide range of deployment scenarios, the formats are expected
> to be expressive enough to allow the use of different firmware sources and permission models.
> 
> To enable SUIT Status Tracker functionality (per RFC9019), the SUIT WG
> is also defining extensions to determine if a particular manifest
> could be successfully deployed to a device and determine if an
> operation was successful.
> 
> In addition, the SUIT WG will work with the RATS WG to specify claims
> related to the SUIT Status Tracker that can be used to provide
> evidence in support of the RATS architecture.
> 
> The SUIT WG will continue to work with silicon vendors and OEMs that
> develop IoT operating systems to produce implementations based on SUIT
> WG specifications.  In particular, the SUIT WG plans to continue to
> participate in IETF Hackathons.
> 
> The SUIT WG document deliverables are:
> * A SUIT manifest format specification using CBOR.
> * Extensions to the SUIT manifest for optional capabilities, including:
>  - firmware encryption,
>  - trust domains,
>  - update management, and
>  - inclusion of a file in the MUD format (RFC 8520).
> * A secure method for an IoT device to report on firmware update status.
> 
> In addition, either the SUIT WG or the RATS WG will produce:
> * A set of claims for attesting to firmware update status.
> 
> Milestones:
> 
>  Dec 2021 - Adopt SUIT Manifest update management document as WG item
> 
>  Dec 2021 - Adopt SUIT Manifest trust domains document as WG item
> 
>  Dec 2021 - Adopt SUIT Manifest MUD extension document as WG item
> 
>  Mar 2022 - Decide with RATS WG in which working group the 'set of
> claims  for attesting to firmware update status' document should be
> produced
> 
>  Aug 2022 - Submit firmware encryption document to the IESG for
> publication  as a Proposed Standard
> 
>  Sep 2022 - Submit SUIT Status Tracker document to the IESG for
> publication  as a Proposed Standard
> 
>  Nov 2022 - Submit SUIT Manifest update management document to the
> IESG for  publication as a Proposed Standard
> 
>  Nov 2022 - Submit SUIT Manifest trust domains document to the IESG
> for  publication as a Proposed Standard
> 
>  Dec 2022 - Submit SUIT Manifest MUD extension document to the IESG
> for  publication as a Proposed Standard
>