Skip to main content

Secure Reporting of Update Status

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (suit WG)
Authors Brendan Moran , Henk Birkholz
Last updated 2022-07-11
Replaces draft-moran-suit-report
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
SUIT                                                            B. Moran
Internet-Draft                                               Arm Limited
Intended status: Informational                               H. Birkholz
Expires: 12 January 2023                                  Fraunhofer SIT
                                                            11 July 2022

                   Secure Reporting of Update Status


   The Software Update for the Internet of Things (SUIT) manifest
   provides a way for many different update and boot workflows to be
   described by a common format.  However, this does not provide a
   feedback mechanism for developers in the event that an update or boot

   This specification describes a lightweight feedback mechanism that
   allows a developer in possession of a manifest to reconstruct the
   decisions made and actions performed by a manifest processor.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 January 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights

Moran & Birkholz         Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      Secure Reporting of Update Status          July 2022

   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The SUIT Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  The SUIT Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   A SUIT manifest processor can fail to install or boot an update for
   many reasons.  Frequently, the error codes generated by such systems
   fail to provide developers with enough information to find root
   causes and produce corrective actions, resulting in extra effort to
   reproduce failures.  Logging the results of each SUIT command can
   simplify this process.

   While it is possible to report the results of SUIT commands through
   existing logging or attestation mechanisms, this comes with several

   *  data inflation, particularly when designed for text-based logging

   *  missing information elements

   *  missing support for multiple components

   The CBOR objects defined in this document allow devices to:

   *  report a trace of how an update was performed

   *  report expected vs. actual values for critical checks

   *  describe the installation of complex multi-component architectures

   *  describe the measured properties of a system

Moran & Birkholz         Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft      Secure Reporting of Update Status          July 2022

   *  report the exact reason for a parsing failure

   This document provides a definition of a SUIT-specific logging
   container that may be used in a variety of scenarios.

2.  Conventions and Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Terms used in this specification include:

   *  Boot: initialization of an executable image.  Although this
      specification refers to boot, any boot-specific operations
      described are equally applicable to starting an executable in an
      OS context.

3.  The SUIT Record

   If the developer can be assumed to have a copy of the manifest, then
   they need little information to reconstruct what the manifest
   processor has done.  They simply need any data that influences the
   control flow of the manifest.  The manifest only supports the
   following control flow primitives:

   *  Set Component/Dependency Index

   *  Set/Override Parameters

   *  Try-Each

   *  Run Sequence

   *  Conditions

   Of these, only conditions change the behavior of the processor from
   the default, and then only when the condition fails.

   Then, to reconstruct the flow of a manifest, all a developer needs is
   a list of metadata about failed conditions:

   *  the current manifest

   *  the current section

Moran & Birkholz         Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft      Secure Reporting of Update Status          July 2022

   *  the offset into the current section

   *  the current component index

   *  the "reason" for failure

   Most conditions compare a parameter to an actual value, so the
   "reason" is typically simply the actual value.

   Since it is possible that a non-condition command (directive) may
   fail in an exceptional circumstance, this must be included as well.
   However, a failed directive will terminate processing of the
   manifest.  To accommodate for a failed command and for explicit
   "completion," an additional "result" element is added as well.  In
   the case of a command failure, the failure reason is typically a
   numeric error code.  However, these error codes need to be
   standardised in order to be useful.

   Reconstructing what a device has done in this way is compact, however
   it requires some reconstruction effort.  This is an issue that can be
   solved by tooling.

   SUIT_Record = {
       suit-record-manifest-id        => [* uint ],
       suit-record-manifest-section   => int,
       suit-record-section-offset     => uint,
           suit-record-component-index  => uint //
           suit-record-dependency-index => uint
       suit-record-properties     => SUIT_Parameters,

   suit-record-manifest-id is used to identify which manifest contains
   the command that caused the record to be generated.  The manifest id
   is a list of integers that form a walk of the manifest tree, starting
   at the root.  An empty list indicates that the command was contained
   in the root manifest.  If the list is not empty, the command was
   contained in one of the root manifest's dependencies, or nested even
   further below that.

   For example, suppose that the root manifest has 3 dependencies and
   each of those dependencies has 2 dependencies of its own:

   *  Root

      -  Dependency A

Moran & Birkholz         Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft      Secure Reporting of Update Status          July 2022

         o  Dependency A0

         o  Dependency A1

      -  Dependency B

         o  Dependency B0

         o  Dependency B1

      -  Dependency C

         o  Dependency C0

         o  Dependency C1

   A manifest-id of [1,0] would indicate that the current command was
   contained within Dependency B0.  Similarly, a manifest-id of [2,1]
   would indicate Dependency C1

   suit-record-manifest-section indicates which section of the manifest
   was active.  This is used in addition to an offset so that the
   developer can index into severable sections in a predictable way.
   The value of this element is the value of the key that identified the
   section in the manifest.

   suit-record-section-offset is the number of bytes into the current
   section at which the current command is located.

   suit-record-component-index is the index of the component that was
   specified at the time that the report was generated.  This field is
   necessary due to the availability of set-current-component values of
   True and a list of components.  Both of these values cause the
   manifest processor to loop over commands using a series of component-
   ids, so the developer needs to know which was selected when the
   command executed.

   suit-record-dependency-index is similar to suit-record-component-
   index but is used to identify the dependency that was active.

   suit-record-properties contains any measured properties that led to
   the command failure.  For example, this could be the actual value of
   a SUIT_Digest or class identifier.  This is encoded in a
   SUIT_Parameters block as defined in [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest].

Moran & Birkholz         Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft      Secure Reporting of Update Status          July 2022

4.  The SUIT Report

   Some metadata is common to all records, such as the root manifest:
   the manifest that is the entry-point for the manifest processor.
   This metadata is aggregated with a list of SUIT_Records.  The
   SUIT_Report may also contain a list of any system properties that
   were measured and reported, and a reason for a failure if one

   SUIT_Report = {
     suit-report-manifest-digest => SUIT_Digest,
     ? suit-report-manifest-uri  => tstr,
     ? suit-report-nonce         => bstr,
     suit-report-records         => [ * SUIT_Record ],
     ? suit-system-properties      => [ + system-property-claims ],
     suit-report-result          => true / {
       suit-report-result-code   => int, ; could condense to enum later
       suit-report-result-record => SUIT_Record,
   system-property-claims = {
     system-component-id => SUIT_Component_Identifier,
     + SUIT_Parameters,

   suit-report-manifest-digest provides a SUIT_Digest (as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) that is the characteristic digest of the
   Root manifest.

   suit-report-manifest-uri provides the reference URI that was provided
   in the root manifest.

   suit-report-nonce provides a container for freshness or replay
   protection information.  This field MAY be omitted where the suit-
   report is authenticated within a container that provides freshness
   already.  For example, attestation evidence typically contains a
   proof of freshness.

   suit-system-properties provides a list of measured or asserted
   properties of the system that creates the suit report.  These
   properties are scoped by component identifier.  Because this list is
   expected to be constructed on the fly by a constrained node,
   component identifiers may appear more than once.  A recipient may
   convert the result to a more conventional structure:

Moran & Birkholz         Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft      Secure Reporting of Update Status          July 2022

   SUIT_Record_System_Properties = {
     * component-id => {
       + SUIT_Parameters,

   suit-report-records is a list of 0 or more SUIT Records.  Because
   SUIT Records are only generated on failure, in simple cases this can
   be an empty list.

   suit-report-result provides a mechanism to show that the SUIT
   procedure completed successfully (value is true) or why it failed
   (value is a map of an error code and a SUIT_Record).

   The suit-report-result-code indicates the reason for the failure.
   Values are expected to be CBOR parsing failures, Schema validation
   failures, COSE validation failures or SUIT processing failures.

   The suit-report-result-record indicates the exact point in the
   manifest or manifest dependency tree where the error occured.

5.  Attestation

   This document ~~can allow~~ describes how a well-informed verifier
   can infer the trustworthiness of a remote device.  Remote attestation
   is done by using the SUIT_Manifest_Envelope along with the
   SUIT_Report to reconstruct the state of the device at boot time.  By
   embedding data used for remote attestation in the SUIT_Report, a
   remote device can use an append-only log to collect both measurements
   and debug/failure information into the same document.  This document
   can then be conveyed to a verifier as a part of the attestation
   evidence.  A remote attestation format to convey attestation
   evidence, such as an Entity Attestation Token (EAT, see
   [I-D.ietf-rats-eat]), that contains a SUIT_Report MUST also include
   an integrity measurement of the Manifest Parser & Report Generator.

   When a Concise Reference Integrity Manifest (CoRIM, see
   [I-D.birkholz-rats-corim] is delivered in a SUIT_Manifest_Envelope,
   this codifies the delivery of verification information to the

   *  The Firmware Distributor:

      -  sends the SUIT_Manifest_Envelope to the Verifier without
         payload or text, but with CoRIM

      -  sends the SUIT_Manifest_Envelope to the recipient without
         CoRIM, or text, but with payload

Moran & Birkholz         Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft      Secure Reporting of Update Status          July 2022

   *  The Recipient:

      -  Installs the firmware as described in the SUIT_Manifest and
         generates a SUIT_report, which is encapsulated in an EAT by the
         installer and sent to the Firmware Distributor.

      -  Boots the firmware as described in the SUIT_Manifest and
         creates a SUIT_report, which is encapsulated in an EAT by the
         installer and sent to the Firmware Distributor.

   *  The Firmware Distributor sends both reports to the verifier
      (separately or together)

   *  The Verifier:

      -  Reconstructs the state of the device using the manifest

      -  Compares this state to the CoRIM

      -  Returns an Attestation Report to the Firmware Distributor

   This approach simplifies the design of the bootloader since it is
   able to use an append-only log.  It allows a verifier to validate
   this report against a signed CoRIM that is provided by the firmware
   author, which simplifies the delivery chain of verification
   information to the verifier.

   This information is not intended as Attestation Evidence and while an
   Attestation Report MAY provide this information for conveying error
   codes and/or failure reports, it SHOULD be translated into general-
   purpose claims for use by the Relying Party.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate a CBOR tag for the SUIT Report.

7.  Security Considerations

   The SUIT Report should either be carried over a secure transport, or
   signed, or both.  Ideally, attestation should be used to prove that
   the report was generated by legitimate hardware.

8.  Acknowledgements

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

Moran & Birkholz         Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft      Secure Reporting of Update Status          July 2022

              Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., Birkholz, H., and K. Zandberg,
              "A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)-based
              Serialization Format for the Software Updates for Internet
              of Things (SUIT) Manifest", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-suit-manifest-18, 11 July 2022,

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <>.

9.2.  Informative References

              Birkholz, H., Fossati, T., Deshpande, Y., Smith, N., and
              W. Pan, "Concise Reference Integrity Manifest", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-birkholz-rats-corim-03, 11
              July 2022, <

              Lundblade, L., Mandyam, G., and J. O'Donoghue, "The Entity
              Attestation Token (EAT)", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-rats-eat-14, 10 July 2022,

Authors' Addresses

   Brendan Moran
   Arm Limited

   Henk Birkholz
   Fraunhofer SIT

Moran & Birkholz         Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 9]