IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Suit] SUIT rechartering: proposed text

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 24 July 2021 19:08 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 D5ABF3A137D for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 12:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ST_WsQ_3oYUw for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 12:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 300163A46B1 for <suit@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 12:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F9E38A8F for <suit@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 15:11:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id jD7nJeE94qKi for <suit@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 15:11:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5B038A87 for <suit@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 15:11:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC3B2CC for <suit@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 15:08:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: suit <suit@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <MW2PR2101MB09383B94FA647B1867EF2C3DA3E69@MW2PR2101MB0938.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <66D84CE5-22E6-44F0-8239-8A5832326219@arm.com> <3E7D5E5B-03EE-4EDD-A951-FB119F72DDE8@arm.com> <16339.1613515194@localhost> <E4B87013-1498-463F-98C0-5FF13344C3EA@arm.com> <6FC3F38A-B067-4180-ACD9-A121162EA459@vigilsec.com> <26718.1626138395@localhost> <MN2PR09MB4841BA0A0CC978E70A09A509F0119@MN2PR09MB4841.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <67F117E7-28F2-45F3-BC4C-AC8116BCB69F@vigilsec.com> <SN6PR2101MB0943178F1E627E78A1343AE8A3E59@SN6PR2101MB0943.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <50B65F80-808D-4591-9D4D-2346796DA204@vigilsec.com> <8988.1627137075@localhost> <MW2PR2101MB09383B94FA647B1867EF2C3DA3E69@MW2PR2101MB0938.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 15:08:05 -0400
Message-ID: <17512.1627153685@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/SS6bB1BwvjjX7WZQ8vhEx0mYYTM>
Subject: Re: [Suit] SUIT rechartering: proposed text
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: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 19:08:16 -0000

Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    >> I can think of ways to securely report firmware update status that do
    >> not involve attesting, but if you do attesting (b), then you definitely
    >> do (a), right?

    > You can attest to current state without attesting to the errors that
    > happened the last time you tried to install something.

I agree.
So (a) involves providing feedback on failed attempts to upgrade.

    > (If the errors happened during boot then they may be reported, but
    > post-boot install errors might not be.)

    > And as you mentioned, you can report status (and errors) without attesting.
    > So I think they're complementary items that will often but not always
    > be used together.

I understand now.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email