IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Suit] Boot vs. Invocation

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 03 August 2020 19:32 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 8CAD03A109E for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 12:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ruxkcn7j8uy5 for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ABC23A10AD for <suit@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 12:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E28A389A0; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 15:12:06 -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 dYiUEfivOO6Y; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 15:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A74713899D; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 15:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A9463E; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 15:32:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com>
cc: suit <suit@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <9CA92962-0D40-47CF-BB62-DE325D1D0869@arm.com>
References: <9CA92962-0D40-47CF-BB62-DE325D1D0869@arm.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: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 15:32:38 -0400
Message-ID: <20842.1596483158@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/Z8VU26lFI4cK7QitLj20vSaA3zY>
Subject: Re: [Suit] Boot vs. Invocation
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, 03 Aug 2020 19:32:47 -0000


Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com> wrote:
    > In response to some of Dave T’s comments (specifically, [DT32]) I would
    > like to propose replacing instances of “boot” with “invocation” so that
    > "secure boot" becomes “secure invocation.” This is to make it clearer

I think that "secure invocation" is a bit jarring to the ear... more awkward to read, but I don't object.
Are there any other possible words?

. o O ( KMAC(wingardim levioso!) )

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email