[Suit] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-suit-report-17.txt

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

I would hold off.  The other thing that we want to happen is for Eric V. to
respond (I did ping him, since it has been a minute).

Deb

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 3:22 PM Brendan Moran <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> My vote is for the 1 week wglc.
>
> Should I hold off publishing the updated media type reg & title update (
> suit-report-result) until that completes?
>
> Best Regards,
> Brendan
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2025 at 16:49, Deb Cooley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that.
>>
>> Section 4.2 note:  you can either take it out or we can issue a 1 week
>> wglc to verify that the wg agrees with it.  Since Eric still has to clear
>> his discuss, I'd take the wglc option.
>>
>> Section 4.2  Ok, so then change the title?  You do have a choice of
>> 'Suit_Report Result' and 'Suit_Report Record' or 'suit-report-result' and
>> 'suit-report-record.  As long as you are matchy matchy, I'm good.
>>
>> Media-types:  thanks.  Keep an eye on this.  I'm not sure you really make
>> it into the editor's queue until IANA is happy.
>>
>> Deb
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:14 AM Brendan Moran <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Deb,
>>>
>>> 1. During IESG evaluation of -15, Mohamed Boucadair filed a
>>> DISCUSS/COMMENT. One of his COMMENT items was:
>>>
>>> > Consider adding a definition for ‘manifest section’ or at least point
>>> to where this defined.”
>>>
>>> In response to this, we clarified all references to the ambiguous
>>> "section" terminology. In fact, this was a slide element at IETF124:
>>>
>>> * Clarified that suit-record-manifest-section refers to a manifest
>>> Command Sequence
>>>   * Defined supported command sequences (as of writing)
>>>
>>> 2. In Med's review of draft-ietf-suit-report-15, he pointed out that
>>> SUIT_Report_Records is not defined anywhere:
>>>
>>> > # SUIT_Report_Records
>>> >
>>> > Failed to find where this is defined (here, draft-ietf-suit-manifest,
>>> > draft-ietf-suit-mti, etc.).
>>>
>>> This prompted a rename because the CDDL, indeed, does not contain
>>> SUIT_Report_Records.
>>>
>>> "SUIT_Report Result" was intended to mean "the result in a
>>> SUIT_Report" which is why it was not renamed previously. For
>>> consistency, it should be since there is, indeed, a CDDL element named
>>> suit-report-result.
>>>
>>> 3. Notes in Section 4.2; this note was a result of some preparatory
>>> work for doing some expansion of my SUIT implementation. Should it be
>>> removed since it wasn't part of previous reviews? I guess I jumped the
>>> gun with adding that in. It seemed like an important consideration to
>>> me.
>>>
>>> 2 paragraphs in Section 8: In Med's review of
>>> draft-ietf-suit-report-15, he pointed out that we should tie reporting
>>> security requirements back to RFC9124.
>>>
>>> > # SUIT Information Model
>>> >
>>> > CURRENT:
>>> >    The SUIT_Report MUST be transported using one of the following
>>> >    methods:
>>> >
>>> > How that is related to the reporting requirement in RFC9124? Can that
>>> be
>>> > clarified in the document?
>>>
>>> This change clarified that the requirement goes back to RFC9124.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Brendan
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 1:49 PM Deb Cooley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I should have waited until I had finished going through all of the
>>> changes.... So, in addition to my request to respond to the media-type
>>> registration query (from August):
>>> >
>>> > 1.  There was a global replace of 'section' for 'Command Sequence'.
>>> Reason?
>>> >
>>> > 2.  Section 4.1 was renamed to 'suit-report-records' while Section 4.2
>>> remained 'Suit_Report Results'.  given there that 'suit-report-results'
>>> exists, and given it is the subject of the section, shouldn't that be
>>> changed as well?   Of course changing Section 4.1 to 'Suit_Report Records'
>>> would work too.  (Please be ready to outline whatever naming terminology
>>> you use when the editor asks for specifics to be applied to this draft.)
>>> >
>>> > 3.  Section 4.2 Note, Section 8 paras 1&2:  When were these added, was
>>> it in response to a review/IESG comments?  If not, does the working group
>>> approve the inclusions?
>>> >
>>> > Deb
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 8:17 AM Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Please follow up on this request re:  Media-type request:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/ye-BdIlpw10zoZoCKmAbN_gHIwA/
>>> >>
>>> >> Deb
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 7:17 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-suit-report-17.txt is now available. It is
>>> a work
>>> >>> item of the Software Updates for Internet of Things (SUIT) WG of the
>>> IETF.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>    Title:   Secure Reporting of SUIT Update Status
>>> >>>    Authors: Brendan Moran
>>> >>>             Henk Birkholz
>>> >>>    Name:    draft-ietf-suit-report-17.txt
>>> >>>    Pages:   30
>>> >>>    Dates:   2025-11-25
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Abstract:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>    The Software Update for the Internet of Things (SUIT) manifest
>>> >>>    provides a way for many different update and boot workflows to be
>>> >>>    described by a common format.  This document specifies a
>>> lightweight
>>> >>>    feedback mechanism that allows a developer in possession of a
>>> >>>    manifest to reconstruct the decisions made and actions performed
>>> by a
>>> >>>    manifest processor.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-suit-report/
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
>>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-suit-report-17
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> >>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-suit-report-17
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
>>> >>> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> Suit mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>>
>>