Subject: Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-suit-architecture-13

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:39:25 +0000

Thank you, Mohit, for your extensive review.

I have used your review for my ballot for today IESG telechat.

Regards

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Iot-directorate <[email-masked]> on behalf of Mohit Sethi via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: Mohit Sethi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 21:03
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-suit-architecture-13

    Reviewer: Mohit Sethi
    Review result: Ready with Nits

    Thanks for the well written document.

    I wonder if you want to state the difference between software and firmware
    update. Are they the same thing for this document? The text in the draft at
    some point says "Moreover, this architecture is not limited to managing
    software updates". But most of the other text talks about "firmware updates".

    Abstract: "Vulnerabilities with Internet of Things (IoT) devices" ->
    "Vulnerabilities in Internet of Things (IoT) devices"

    How about rephrasing the text: "are expected to work automatically, i.e.
    without user involvement. Automatic updates that do not require human
    intervention are key to a scalable solution for fixing software
    vulnerabilities." to "are o a large extent expected to work automatically, i.e.
    with minimal human interaction. Automatic updates that require minimal or no
    interaction are key to a ....". The reason for requesting this change is
    simple: in many scenarios you would want user approval before the actual
    update. For example, updating lights at night during dinner is perhaps not
    ideal. The draft does discuss the importance of device operator approval in
    some circumstances so updating the text would make sense.

    "programming language uses and the sandbox the software is executed in."->
    "programming language used...".

    "Ensuring an energy efficient design of a battery-powered IoT devices because a
    firmware update -> "...of a battery-powered IoT device because..."

    I think most readers will be more familiar with the term Original Equipment
    Manufacture (OEM) rather than Original Design Manufacturer (ODM). I understand
    that ARM has a slightly complicated ecosystem and business model. So perhaps
    the text could say "in some cases, the OEM or the ODM act as a TPA and may
    decide to remain in full control...."

    "edge computing device" -> "edge computing devices"

    "Updating updates over the Internet" -> "Sending updates over the Internet"
    sounds a bit better

    "the status tracker client need to be made aware of the availability of a" ->
    "...the status tracker client needs to be informed about the availability of
    a....."

    "what devices qualify for a firmware update" -> "which devices qualify for a
    firmware update"

    "are only two approaches recovering from an invalid firmware" -> " are only two
    approaches for recovering from an invalid firmware"

    I am not familiar with non-relocatable code. I think this is somewhat explained
    later on as "execute in place" but perhaps adding a few sentences here
    explaining non-relocatable code wouldn't hurt.

    Perhaps replace "keyed message digests" with more standard "HMAC" and add a
    reference to RFC 2104

    stray closing parenthesis -> "protection was applied)"

    "Hence, then the firmware image is updated" -> "Hence, when the firmware image
    is updated"

    Not sure how to interpret "mutually-distrustful delivery". I guess I understand
    that the firmware author and user both want to prevent revealing some
    information to the other party. But can we not use "mutually-distrustful
    delivery"?

    The draft uses TAs for trusted applications (TAs). But RFC 6024 referenced by
    this document uses TAs for Trust anchors. Can we avoid using TA abbreviations
    for trusted applications for ?

    -- 
    Iot-directorate mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate