IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Suit] SUIT rechartering: proposed text

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Sat, 24 July 2021 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 E34E83A3D20 for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 07:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
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 G_ebep-Hae4k for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 07:31:26 -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 3AD3B3A3D1E for <suit@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 07:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152B238AA7; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:34:55 -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 SGSa7sxZveV3; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:34:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C0B38AA5; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:34:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9509E7; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:31:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, suit <suit@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <50B65F80-808D-4591-9D4D-2346796DA204@vigilsec.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>
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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:31:15 -0400
Message-ID: <8988.1627137075@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/VVTiJHi6soj-hH-pG89gvdRTt8U>
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 14:31:31 -0000

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
    >> I can’t parse the above bullet, maybe a word missing right before “for IoT device”?

    > Yep, that is messed up.  How about:

    > * A secure method for an IoT device to report on firmware update
    > status.

That sounds like it would definitely solve the issues that Brendon has been
worried about.

    >> > * A set of claims related for attesting to firmware update status.
    >>
    >> Remove “related”.

So, how do the two points/goals differ?

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?

--
]               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    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email