[Suit] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-suit-architecture-14: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-suit-architecture-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-suit-architecture/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice work on this; thanks.  I have a bunch of comments, but all minor.

— Section 1 —

   Firmware updates can help to fix security vulnerabilities and are
   considered to be an important building block in securing IoT devices.

Nit: “firmware updates” is plural, and “building block” is singular.  I think
it’s actually *doing* the updates that’s the building block, not he updates
themselves.  And you can just make the statement, without “are considered”. 
How do you like this version?:

NEW
   Firmware updates can help to fix security vulnerabilities, and
   performing updates is an important building block in securing
   IoT devices.
END

   Due to rising concerns about insecure IoT devices the Internet
   Architecture Board (IAB) organized a 'Workshop on Internet of Things
   (IoT) Software Update (IOTSU)', which took place at Trinity College
   Dublin, Ireland on the 13th and 14th of June, 2016 to take a look at
   the bigger picture.  A report about this workshop can be found at
   [RFC8240].  The workshop revealed a number of challenges for
   developers and led to the formation of the IETF Software Updates for
   Internet of Things (SUIT) working group.

The details of when and where the workshop happened isn’t important here, and
it’s rigt up front in 8240 anyway.  I suggest trimming that, because the
important part is pointing people to the worshop report and saying what’s in
the next sentence about the formation of the SUIT WG.

NEW
   Due to rising concerns about insecure IoT devices the Internet
   Architecture Board (IAB) organized a 'Workshop on Internet of Things
   (IoT) Software Update (IOTSU)' [RFC8240] to take a look at
   the bigger picture.  The workshop revealed a number of challenges for
   developers and led to the formation of the IETF Software Updates for
   Internet of Things (SUIT) working group.
END

   Firmware updates are not only done to fix bugs, but they can also add
   new functionality, and re-configure

Grammar nit: “Firmware updates are done not only to fix bugs, but also to add
new functionality and to reconfigure”

   Unlike higher end devices, like laptops and desktop PCs, many
   IoT devices do not have user interfaces and support for unattended
   updates is, therefore, essential for the design of a practical

My first reading of this was that “many IoT devices do not have user interfaces
and support for unattended updates.”  I had to read it again to correctly
interpret the sentence.  If you replace “interfaces and” with “interfaces;” it
fixes that problem easily.

   using pre-configured hostnames or [RFC6763] DNS-SD.

The citation should go after “DNS-SD”.

— Section 2.1 —

   -  Firmware Image: The firmware image, or image, is a binary

The “or image” seems odd there.  Maybe like this?:

NEW
   -  Firmware Image: The firmware image, or simply the “image”,
       is a binary
END

— Section 2.3 —

      The deployment of status trackers is flexible and may
      be found at
      cloud-based servers, on-premise servers, or may be embedded in
      edge computing devices.

(Odd line-break here...)
Nit: the list is not parallel, and the intro doesnt read right.  Try this?:

NEW
      The deployment of status trackers is flexible: they may
      be found at cloud-based servers or on-premise servers,
      or they may be embedded in edge computing devices.
END

— Section 3 —

   images to the firmware server and to initiate an update him- or
   herself.

Nit: I suggest avoiding the awkwardness by saying “and to initiate an update
directly.”

   As a first step in the firmware update process, the status tracker
   client needs to be made aware of the availability of a new firmware
   update by the status tracker server.

Nit: passive voice makes this more awkward than it needs to be, especially as
you have a clear subject already (the server).  Why not make it active?:

NEW
   As a first step in the firmware update process, the status tracker
   server needs to inform the status tracker client that a new firmware
   update is available.
END

   -  Using a hybrid approach the server-side of the status tracker
      pushes notifications of availability of an update to the client
      side and requests the firmware consumer to pull the manifest and
      the firmware image from the firmware server.

As written, this is exactly the same as the server-initiated scenario.  In both
cases, the server tells the client that an update is available, and the
firmware consumer fetches the manifest and image.  What is the difference meant
to be?  Do one or both of the descriptions need to be tweaked?  (I’m guessing
that the server-initiated description should be changed to say that the server
pushes the manifest and image, rather than waiting for the client to fetch
it... yes?)

   If the firmware consumer has downloaded a new firmware image and is
   ready to install it, to initiate the installation, it may - either
   need to wait for a trigger from the status tracker, - or trigger the
   update automatically, - or go through a more complex decision making
   process to determine the appropriate timing for an update.

Are those dashes meant to be bullets in a list, and so is this a formatting
glitch?

   Devices
   must not fail when a disruption occurs during the update process.
   For example, a power failure or network disruption during the update
   process must not cause the device to fail.

Nit: why not merge these two sentences?:

NEW
   Devices
   must not fail when a disruption, such as a power failure or network
   interruption, occurs during the update process.
END

— Section 4.1 —

   -  The bootloader needs to fetch the manifest (or manifest-alike
      headers) from nonvolatile storage

What are “manifest-alike headers”?

      This allows to share
      information about the current firmware version

“Allows to share” doesn’t work in English: you need a subject, “allows
<subject> to share <object>”.  If you don’t have a subject, you can say “allows
the sharing of information...”.

— Section 6 —

   A manifest may not only be used to protect firmware images but also
   configuration data such as network credentials

Similar to a comment above, this has “not only” misplaced:

NEW
   A manifest may be used to protect not only firmware images but also
   configuration data such as network credentials
END