Title: Encrypted Payloads in SUIT Manifests
Current Version:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-suit-firmware-encryption/19/
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The SUIT-firmware-encryption has been thoroughly reviewed by working group
members. The authors have given updates on progress of the draft during all of
the WG meetings. A number of detailed reviews of the document were posted to
the working group mailing list, and in the sessions at the IETF. The draft was
adopted in July 2021 with WG support for adoption. The authors of this document
have extensive knowledge and experience with the technologies and
implementations as well as the related technology such as CBOR, CDDL, COSE,
Encryption methods in Crypto.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There was no controversy about any point.
The only difficulty in the design decisions was the changes to switch from HPKE
to ephemeral-static DH, and the challenges designing the context information
structure, however nothing controversial.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
Nobody has expressed extreme discontent or threatened an appeal in the mailing
list or during the IETF sessions.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
There are multiple open-source implementations that rely on the
SUIT-firmware-encryption. The feature of the SUIT-firmware-encryption is
implemented and available on github.
https://github.com/laurencelundblade/t_cosehttps://github.com/kentakayama/suit-manifest-generatorhttps://github.com/kentakayama/libcsuit Also, multiple implementations in the
TEEP Protocol listed in the "Additional resources" Section of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teep-protocol/ relies on the
SUIT-firmware-encryption.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
The SUIT-firmware-encryption uses CBOR for the binary representation, CDDL as a
data description language and relies on COSE for security technology. The draft
has been reviewed by members actively contributing to these working groups.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No, the draft does not require expert reviews by the MIB doctor, YANG doctor,
and media type/URI type reviewers.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?
No, the document does not contain a YANG module.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
Yes, with the script and procedure at TEEP protocol, the CDDL file in the draft
passes the CBOR’s CDDL syntax check with Makefile in TEEP Protocol which
downloading the CDDL file of the SUIT-firmware-encryption and parse it with
CDDL tools for syntax check since TEEP Protocol depends on the
SUIT-firmware-encryption.
```
git clone https://github.com/ietf-teep/teep-protocol.git
cd teep-protocol/
make
make -C cddl
make validate-cddl
```
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, it is ready to be handed off to the responsible AD.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
Unaware of any issues from any other areas have been identified or addressed
on the draft. This draft is in the security area and has been reviewed by
security experts who participate in the WG.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard as indicated on the datatracker.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
All authors and contributors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR
related to this draft.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
The total number of authors of this specification is 5.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
IDnits reported warnings on CDDL description which do not require fixes.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
There no informative references should be normative or vice-versa.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are RFCs or Internet-Drafts and all are freely
available.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
None.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
a) I-D.ietf-suit-manifest: WGLC done, revised I-D needed
b) I-D.ietf-suit-trust-domains: WGLC done, revised I-D needed
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No, publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFCs.
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
IANA is asked to add the following value to the SUIT Parameters registry
established by Section 11.5 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest].
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
Not applicable
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/