[Suit] Re: Clearing DISCUSS's on draft-ietf-suit-manifest

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 10:19 AM Brendan Moran <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Dear SUIT working group,
>
>
>
> I believe that with the latest, v28 manifest revision, we should now have
> cleared the remaining DISCUSS items.
>

I think there is still some wording issues here unfortunately.

     For each registry, values 0-255 are Standards Action and 256 or
greater are Specification Required. Negative values -255 to 0 are
     Standards Action, and -256 and lower are Private Use.

This looks fine, but then the DE advise later on states:

     Specifications are required for the standards track range of point
assignment. Specifications should exist for all other ranges, but
     early assignment before a specification is available is considered to
be permissible. When specifications are not provided, the
     description provided needs to have sufficient information to identify
what the point is being used for.

These statements conflict. Specifications are always required as per IANA
Considerations Section. I also question doing early code allocation without
a specification, as the intend for early code points is that those are
stable enough to not require changes, which clearly isn't true for things
without specifications.


Other issues I raised in comments (and prob should have been DISCUSSes have
also not been addressed):

Shouldn't all of the [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-*] references be normative?

mandatory-to-implement rules are not in main body but appendix.


The CDDL contains:

suit-reporting-bits = &(
    suit-send-record-success : 0,
    suit-send-record-failure : 1,
    suit-send-sysinfo-success : 2,
    suit-send-sysinfo-failure : 3
)
Doesn't this mean 2 bits are used to declare a bool?
What if these contradict? Why not use a single bit?

Paul