IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Suit] Review of draft-ietf-suit-manifest-09

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 03 August 2020 00:14 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 7F8F23A0E09 for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 17:14:26 -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 gwXWSQusYzqr for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 17:14:24 -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 A84713A0DB9 for <suit@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 17:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393933899D; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 19:53:46 -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 kyfdlcdTyRHZ; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 19:53:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB5838991; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 19:53:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CA29A; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 20:14:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com>, suit <suit@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <21C2CB5D-37E1-4C74-A0FD-36623F4CCD2E@arm.com>
References: <BL0PR2101MB1027152EC8DAD9B3847C3E89A3770@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <70453005-8DFA-4DBE-8C04-9882839D5005@arm.com> <BL0PR2101MB1027CB46179113E5AFF5CC3BA3720@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR2101MB1027E0C3AAE05FED8E057246A3720@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>, <13874.1596131258@localhost> <21C2CB5D-37E1-4C74-A0FD-36623F4CCD2E@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: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 20:14:21 -0400
Message-ID: <22685.1596413661@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/v8vUKlKLfCNPDLt3FV7UDnDH44Y>
Subject: Re: [Suit] Review of draft-ietf-suit-manifest-09
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 00:14:27 -0000

Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com> wrote:
    > ClassID = uuid5(uuid5(OID_NAMESPACE_UUID, encode_oid([1,3,6,1,4,1,PEN]), Class-Specific-Information)
    > But then we need to define encode_oid because RFC4122 doesn’t specify which OID encoding to use.

Yeah, I see no advantage to including the OID here.

    > Also, we need to support sub-assignments from a PEN, since large
    > organisations may have policies that require the use of specific
    > sub-assignments.

Since this is just to produce a ClassID, it seems that there could be an
integer that could be incremented to form sub-assignments.
Second, I believe that for larger organizations, IANA will assign multiple
PENs to e.g. "ExampleCOM Consumer Devices" vs "ExampleCOM Transportation Systems"

    > How does this approach handle continuity if a vendor were to spin out a
    > sub-entity using the PEN? Is it a situation where the next firmware
    > update needs to replace the PEN?

I guess that is the worse case here.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email