-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
/
draft-ietf-suit-trust-domains.xml
1673 lines (1392 loc) · 88.3 KB
/
draft-ietf-suit-trust-domains.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.6.27 (Ruby 2.7.0) -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
<!ENTITY nbsp " ">
<!ENTITY zwsp "​">
<!ENTITY nbhy "‑">
<!ENTITY wj "⁠">
]>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc strict="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc text-list-symbols="-o*+"?>
<?rfc docmapping="yes"?>
<?rfc toc_levels="4"?>
<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-suit-trust-domains-02" category="std" consensus="true" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true">
<front>
<title abbrev="SUIT Trust Domains">SUIT Manifest Extensions for Multiple Trust Domains</title>
<author initials="B." surname="Moran" fullname="Brendan Moran">
<organization>Arm Limited</organization>
<address>
<email>[email protected]</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="K." surname="Takayama" fullname="Ken Takayama">
<organization>SECOM CO., LTD.</organization>
<address>
<email>[email protected]</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2023" month="May" day="02"/>
<area>Security</area>
<workgroup>SUIT</workgroup>
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This specification describes extensions to the SUIT manifest format (as
defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>) for use in deployments with
multiple trust domains. A device has more than one trust domain when it
enables delegation of different rights to mutually distrusting entities
for use for different purposes or components in the context of firmware
or software update.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="introduction"><name>Introduction</name>
<t>Devices that go beyond single-signer update require more complex rules for deploying software updates. For example, devices may require:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>long-term trust anchors with a mechanism to delegate trust to short term keys.</t>
<t>software components from multiple software signing authorities.</t>
<t>a mechanism to remove an unneeded component</t>
<t>single-object dependencies</t>
<t>a partly encrypted manifest so that distribution does not reveal private information</t>
</list></t>
<t>These mechanisms are not part of the core manifest specification, but they are needed for more advanced use cases, such as the architecture described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-teep-architecture"/>.</t>
<t>This specification extends the SUIT Manifest specification (<xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>).</t>
</section>
<section anchor="conventions-and-terminology"><name>Conventions and Terminology</name>
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
<t>Additionally, the following terminology is used throughout this document:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>SUIT: Software Update for the Internet of Things, also the IETF working group for this standard.</t>
<t>Payload: A piece of information to be delivered. Typically Software for the purposes of SUIT.</t>
<t>Resource: A piece of information that is used to construct a payload.</t>
<t>Manifest: A manifest is a bundle of metadata about one or more Components for a device, where to
find them, and the devices to which they apply.</t>
<t>Envelope: A container with the manifest, an authentication wrapper with cryptographic information protecting the manifest, authorization information, and severable elements (see: TBD).</t>
<t>Update: One or more manifests that describe one or more payloads.</t>
<t>Update Authority: The owner of a cryptographic key used to sign updates, trusted by Recipients.</t>
<t>Recipient: The system that receives and processes a manifest.</t>
<t>Manifest Processor: A component of the Recipient that consumes Manifests and executes the commands in the Manifest.</t>
<t>Component: An updatable logical block of the Firmware, Software, configuration, or data of the Recipient.</t>
<t>Component Set: A group of interdependent Components that must be updated simultaneously.</t>
<t>Command: A Condition or a Directive.</t>
<t>Condition: A test for a property of the Recipient or its Components.</t>
<t>Directive: An action for the Recipient to perform.</t>
<t>Trusted Invocation: A process by which a system ensures that only trusted code is executed, for example secure boot or launching a Trusted Application.</t>
<t>A/B images: Dividing a Recipient's storage into two or more bootable images, at different offsets, such that the active image can write to the inactive image(s).</t>
<t>Record: The result of a Command and any metadata about it.</t>
<t>Report: A list of Records.</t>
<t>Procedure: The process of invoking one or more sequences of commands.</t>
<t>Update Procedure: A procedure that updates a Recipient by fetching dependencies and images, and installing them.</t>
<t>Invocation Procedure: A procedure in which a Recipient verifies dependencies and images, loading images, and invokes one or more image.</t>
<t>Software: Instructions and data that allow a Recipient to perform a useful function.</t>
<t>Firmware: Software that is typically changed infrequently, stored in nonvolatile memory, and small enough to apply to <xref target="RFC7228"/> Class 0-2 devices.</t>
<t>Image: Information that a Recipient uses to perform its function, typically Firmware/Software, configuration, or resource data such as text or images. Also, a Payload, once installed is an Image.</t>
<t>Slot: One of several possible storage locations for a given Component, typically used in A/B image systems</t>
<t>Abort: An event in which the Manifest Processor immediately halts execution of the current Procedure. It creates a Record of an error condition.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-to-suit-workflow-model"><name>Changes to SUIT Workflow Model</name>
<t>The use of the features presented for use with multiple trust domains requires some augmentation of the workflow presented in the SUIT Manifest specification (<xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>):</t>
<t>One additional assumption is added for the Update Procedure:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>All dependency manifests must be present before any payload is fetched.</t>
</list></t>
<t>One additional assumption is added to the Invocation Procedure:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>All dependencies must be validated prior to loading.</t>
</list></t>
<t>Two steps are added to the expected installation workflow of a Recipient:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t><strong>Verify delegation chains</strong></t>
<t>Verify the signature of the manifest.</t>
<t>Verify the applicability of the manifest.</t>
<t><strong>Resolve dependencies.</strong></t>
<t>Fetch payload(s).</t>
<t>Install payload(s).</t>
</list></t>
<t>In addition, when multiple manifests are used for an update, each manifest's steps occur in a lockstep fashion; all manifests have dependency resolution performed before any manifest performs a payload fetch, etc.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="metadata-structure-overview"><name>Changes to Manifest Metadata Structure</name>
<t>To accommodate the additional metadata needed to enable these features, the envelope and manifest have several new elements added.</t>
<t>The Envelope gains two more elements: Delegation chains and Integrated Dependencies
The Common metadata section in the Manifest also gains a list of dependencies.</t>
<t>The new metadata structure is shown below.</t>
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
+-------------------------+
| Envelope |
+-------------------------+
| Delegation Chains |
| Authentication Block |
| Manifest --------------> +------------------------------+
| Severable Elements | | Manifest |
| Human-Readable Text | +------------------------------+
| CoSWID | | Structure Version |
| Integrated Dependencies | | Sequence Number |
| Integrated Payloads | | Reference to Full Manifest |
+-------------------------+ +------ Common Structure |
| +---- Command Sequences |
+-------------------------+ | | | Digests of Envelope Elements |
| Common Structure | <--+ | +------------------------------+
+-------------------------+ |
| Dependency Indices | +-> +-----------------------+
| Component IDs | | Command Sequence |
| Common Command Sequence ---------> +-----------------------+
+-------------------------+ | List of ( pairs of ( |
| * command code |
| * argument / |
| reporting policy |
| )) |
+-----------------------+
]]></artwork></figure>
</section>
<section anchor="ovr-delegation"><name>Delegation Chains</name>
<t>Delegation Chains allow a Recipient to establish a chain of trust from a Trust Anchor to the signer of a manifest by validating delegation claims. Each delegation claim is a <xref target="RFC8392"/> CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs). The first claim in each list is signed by a Trust Anchor. Each subsequent claim in a list is signed by the public key claimed in the preceding list element. The last element in each list claims a public key that can be used to verify a signature in the Authentication Block (See Sectino 5.2 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>).</t>
<t>See <xref target="delegation-info"/> for more detail.</t>
<section anchor="delegation-info"><name>Delegation Chains</name>
<t>The suit-delegation element MAY carry one or more CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) <xref target="RFC8392"/>, with <xref target="RFC8747"/> cnf claims. They can be used to perform enhanced authorization decisions. The CWTs are arranged into a list of lists. Each list starts with a CWT authorized by a Trust Anchor, and finishes with a key used to authenticate the Manifest (see Section 8.3 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>). This allows an Update Authority to delegate from a long term Trust Anchor, down through intermediaries, to a delegate without any out-of-band provisioning of Trust Anchors or intermediary keys.</t>
<t>A Recipient MAY choose to cache intermediaries and/or delegates. If an Update Distributor knows that a targeted Recipient has cached some intermediaries or delegates, it MAY choose to strip any cached intermediaries or delegates from the Delegation Chains in order to reduce bandwidth and energy.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="dependencies"><name>Dependencies</name>
<t>A dependency is another SUIT_Envelope that describes additional components.</t>
<t>Dependency manifests enable several additional use cases. In particular, they enable two or more entities who are trusted for different privileges to coordinate. This can be used in many scenarios, for example:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>A device may contain a processor in its radio in addition to the primary processor. These two processors may have separate firmware with separate signing authorities. Dependencies allow the firmware for the primary processor to reference a manifest signed by a different authority.</t>
<t>A network operator may wish to provide local caching of update payloads. The network operator overrides the URI of a payload by providing a dependent manifest that references the original manifest, but replaces its URI.</t>
<t>A device operator provides a device with some additional configuration. The device operator wants to test their configuration with each new firmware version before releasing it. The configuration is delivered as a binary in the same way as a firmware image. The device operator references the firmware manifest from the firmware author in their own manifest which also defines the configuration.</t>
</list></t>
<t>By using dependencies, components such as Software, configuration, models, and other resources authenticated by different trust anchors can be delivered to devices.</t>
<section anchor="required-checks"><name> Changes to Required Checks</name>
<t>This section augments the definitions in Required Checks (Section 6.2) of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>.</t>
<t>More checks are required when handling dependencies. By default, any signature of a dependency MUST be verified. However, there are some exceptions to this rule: where a device supports only one level of access (no ACLs defining which authorities have access to different components/commands/parameters), it MAY choose to skip signature verification of dependencies, since they are verified by digest. Where a device differentiates between trust levels, such as with an ACL, it MAY choose to defer the verification of signatures of dependencies until the list of affected components is known so that it can skip redundant signature verifications. For example, if a dependent's signer has access rights to all components specified in a dependency, then that dependency does not require a signature verification. Similarly, if the signer of the dependent has full rights to the device, according to the ACL, then no signature verification is necessary on the dependency.</t>
<t>Components that should be treated as dependency manifests are identified in the suit-common metadata. See section <xref target="structure-change"/> for details.</t>
<t>If the manifest contains more than one component and/or dependency, each command sequence MUST begin with a Set Component Index command.</t>
<t>If a dependency is specified, then the manifest processor MUST perform the following checks:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>The dependent MUST populate all command sequences for the current procedure (Update or Invoke).</t>
<t>At the end of each section in the dependent: The corresponding section in each dependency has been executed.</t>
</list></t>
<t>If the interpreter does not support dependencies and a manifest specifies a dependency, then the interpreter MUST Abort.</t>
<t>If a Recipient supports groups of interdependent components (a Component Set), then it SHOULD verify that all Components in the Component Set are specified by one update, that is: a single manifest and all its dependencies that together:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>have sufficient permissions imparted by their signatures</t>
<t>specify a digest and a payload for every Component in the Component Set.</t>
</list></t>
<t>The single dependent manifest is sometimes called a Root Manifest.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="structure-change"><name>Changes to Manifest Structure</name>
<t>This section augments the Manifest Structure (Section 8.4) in <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>.</t>
<section anchor="manifest-id"><name>Manifest Component ID</name>
<t>In complex systems, it may not always be clear where the root manifest should be stored; this is particularly complex when a system has multiple, independent root manifests. The manifest component ID resolves this contention. The manifest-component-id is intended to be used by the root manifest. When a dependency manifest also declares a component ID, the dependency manifest's component ID is overridden by the component ID declared by the dependent.</t>
<t>The following CDDL describes the manifest component ID:</t>
<figure><sourcecode type="CDDL"><![CDATA[
$$SUIT_Manifest_Extensions //=
(suit-manifest-component-id => SUIT_Component_Identifier)
]]></sourcecode></figure>
</section>
<section anchor="SUIT_Dependencies"><name>SUIT_Dependencies Manifest Element</name>
<t>The suit-common section, as described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>, Section 8.4.5 is extended with a map of component indices that indicate a dependency manifest. The key of the map are the component indices and the values of the map are any extra metadata needed to describe those dependency manifests.</t>
<t>Because some operations treat dependency manifests differently from other components, it is necessary to identify them. SUIT_Dependencies identifies which components from suit-components (See Section 8.4.5 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>) are to be treated as dependency manifest envelopes. SUIT_Dependencies is a map of Components, referenced by Component Index. Optionally, a component prefix or other metadata may be delivered with the component index. The CDDL for suit-dependencies is shown below:</t>
<figure><sourcecode type="CDDL"><![CDATA[
$$SUIT_Common-extensions //= (
suit-dependencies => SUIT_Dependencies
)
SUIT_Dependencies = {
+ uint => SUIT_Dependency_Metadata
}
SUIT_Dependency_Metadata = {
? suit-dependency-prefix => SUIT_Component_Identifier
$$SUIT_Dependency_Extensions
}
]]></sourcecode></figure>
<t>If no extended metadata is needed for an extension, SUIT_Dependency_Metadata is an empty map (this is the same encoding size as a null). SUIT_Dependencies MUST be sorted according to CBOR canonical encoding.</t>
<t>The components specified by SUIT_Dependency will contain a Manifest Envelope that describes a dependency of the current manifest. The Manifest is identified, but the Recipient should expect an Envelope when it acquires the dependency. This is because the Manifest is the one invariant element of the Envelope, where other elements may change by countersigning, adding authentication blocks, or severing elements.</t>
<t>When executing suit-condition-image-match over a component that is designated in SUIT_Dependency, the digest MUST be computed over just the bstr-wrapped SUIT_Manifest contained in the Manifest Envelope designated by the Component Index. This enables a dependency reference to uniquely identify a particular Manifest structure. This is identical to the digest that is present as the first element of the suit-authentication-block in the dependency's Envelope. The digest is calculated over the Manifest structure to ensure that removing a signature from a manifest does not break dependencies due to missing signature elements. This is also necessary to support the trusted intermediary use case, where an intermediary re-signs the Manifest, removing the original signature, potentially with a different algorithm, or trading COSE_Sign for COSE_Mac.</t>
<t>The suit-dependency-prefix element contains a SUIT_Component_Identifier (see Section 8.4.5.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>). This specifies the scope at which the dependency operates. This allows the dependency to be forwarded on to a component that is capable of parsing its own manifests. It also allows one manifest to be deployed to multiple dependent Recipients without those Recipients needing consistent component hierarchy. This element is OPTIONAL for Recipients to implement.</t>
<t>A dependency prefix can be used with a component identifier. This allows complex systems to understand where dependencies need to be applied. The dependency prefix can be used in one of two ways. The first simply prepends the prefix to all Component Identifiers in the dependency.</t>
<t>A dependency prefix can also be used to indicate when a dependency manifest needs to be processed by a secondary manifest processor, as described in <xref target="hierarchical-interpreters"/>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-to-abstract-machine-description"><name>Changes to Abstract Machine Description</name>
<t>This section augments the Abstract Machine Description (Section 6.4) in <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>.
With the addition of dependencies, some changes are necessary to the abstract machine, outside the typical scope of added commands. These changes alter the behaviour of an existing command and way that the parser processes manifests:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Three new commands are introduced. <list style="symbols">
<t>Process dependency</t>
<t>Is Dependency</t>
<t>Dependency Integrity</t>
</list></t>
<t>Dependency manifests are also Components. All commands may target dependency manifests as well as Components, with one exception: process dependency. Commands defined outside of this draft and <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/> MAY have additional restrictions.</t>
<t>Dependencies are processed in lock-step with the Root Manifest. This means that every dependency's current command sequence must be executed before a dependent's later command sequence may be executed. For example, every dependency's Dependency Resolution step MUST be executed before any dependent's payload fetch step.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section anchor="processing-dependencies"><name>Processing Dependencies</name>
<t>As described in <xref target="required-checks"/>, each manifest must invoke each of its dependencies' sections from the corresponding section of the dependent. Any changes made to parameters by the dependency persist in the dependent.</t>
<t>When a Process Dependency command is encountered, the manifest processor:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>Checks whether the map of dependencies contains an entry for the current Component Index. If not present, it causes an immediate Abort.</t>
<t>Checks whether the dependency has been the target of a dependency integrity check. If not, it causes an immediate Abort.</t>
<t>Loads the specified component as a dependency manifest envelope.</t>
<t>Authenticates the dependency manifest.</t>
<t>Executes the common-sequence section of the dependency manifest.</t>
<t>Executes the section of the dependency manifest that corresponds to the currently executing section of the dependent.</t>
</list></t>
<t>If the specified dependency does not contain the current section, Process Dependency succeeds immediately.</t>
<t>The interpreter also performs the checks described in <xref target="required-checks"/> to ensure that the dependent is processing the dependency correctly.</t>
<section anchor="hierarchical-interpreters"><name>Multiple Manifest Processors</name>
<t>When a system has multiple trust domains, each domain might require independent verification of authenticity or security policies. Trust domains might be divided by separation technology such as Arm TrustZone, Intel SGX, or another TEE technology. Trust domains might also be divided into separate processors and memory spaces, with a communication interface between them.</t>
<t>For example, an application processor may have an attached communications module that contains a processor. The communications module might require metadata signed by a specific Trust Authority for regulatory approval. This may be a different Trust Authority than the application processor.</t>
<t>When there are two or more trust domains, a manifest processor might be required in each. The first manifest processor is the normal manifest processor as described for the Recipient in Section 6 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>. The second manifest processor only executes sections when the first manifest processor requests it. An API interface is provided from the second manifest processor to the first. This allows the first manifest processor to request a limited set of operations from the second. These operations are limited to: setting parameters, inserting an Envelope, and invoking a Manifest Command Sequence. The second manifest processor declares a prefix to the first, which tells the first manifest processor when it should delegate to the second. These rules are enforced by underlying separation of privilege infrastructure, such as TEEs, or physical separation.</t>
<t>When the first manifest processor encounters a dependency prefix, that informs the first manifest processor that it should provide the second manifest processor with the corresponding dependency Envelope. This is done when the dependency is fetched. The second manifest processor immediately verifies any authentication information in the dependency Envelope. When a parameter is set for any component that matches the prefix, this parameter setting is passed to the second manifest processor via an API. As the first manifest processor works through the Procedure (set of command sequences) it is executing, each time it sees a Process Dependency command that is associated with the prefix declared by the second manifest processor, it uses the API to ask the second manifest processor to invoke that dependency section instead.</t>
<t>This mechanism ensures that the two or more manifest processors do not need to trust each other, except in a very limited case. When parameter setting across trust domains is used, it must be very carefully considered. Only parameters that do not have an effect on security properties should be allowed. The dependency manifest MAY control which parameters are allowed to be set by using the Override Parameters directive. The second manifest processor MAY also control which parameters may be set by the first manifest processor by means of an ACL that lists the allowed parameters. For example, a URI may be set by a dependent without a substantial impact on the security properties of the manifest.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="suit-dependency-resolution"><name>Dependency Resolution</name>
<t>The Dependency Resolution Command Sequence is a container for the commands needed to acquire and process the dependencies of the current manifest. Ideally, all dependency manifests should be fetched before any payload is fetched to ensure that all manifests are available and authenticated before any of the (larger) payloads are acquired.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="added-and-modified-commands"><name>Added and Modified Commands</name>
<t>All commands are modified in that they can also target dependencies. However, Set Component Index has a larger modification.</t>
<texttable>
<ttcol align='left'>Command Name</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Semantic of the Operation</ttcol>
<c>Set Parameters</c>
<c>current.params[k] := v if not k in current.params for-each k,v in arg</c>
<c>Process Dependency</c>
<c>exec(current[common]); exec(current[current-segment])</c>
<c>Dependency Integrity</c>
<c>verify(current, current.params[image-digest])</c>
<c>Is Dependency</c>
<c>assert(current exists in dependencies)</c>
<c>Unlink</c>
<c>unlink(current)</c>
</texttable>
<section anchor="suit-directive-set-parameters"><name>suit-directive-set-parameters</name>
<t>Similarly to suit-directive-override-parameters, suit-directive-set-parameters allows the manifest to configure behavior of future directives by changing parameters that are read by those directives. Set Parameters is for use when dependencies are used because it allows a manifest to modify the behavior of its dependencies.</t>
<t>Available parameters are defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>, section 8.4.8.</t>
<t>If a parameter is already set, suit-directive-set-parameters will skip setting the parameter to its argument. This allows dependent manifests to change the behavior of a manifest, a dependency that wishes to enforce a specific value of a parameter MAY use suit-directive-override-parameters instead.</t>
<t>suit-directive-set-parameters does not specify a reporting policy.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="suit-directive-process-dependency"><name>suit-directive-process-dependency</name>
<t>Execute the commands in the common section of the current dependency, followed by the commands in the equivalent section of the current dependency. For example, if the current section is "fetch payload," this will execute "common" in the current dependency, then "fetch payload" in the current dependency. Once this is complete, the command following suit-directive-process-dependency will be processed.</t>
<t>If the current component index does not have an entry in the suit-dependencies map, then this command MUST Abort.</t>
<t>If the current component index has not been the target of a suit-condition-dependency-integrity, then this command MUST Abort.</t>
<t>If the current component is True, then this directive applies to all dependencies. If the current section is "common," then the command sequence MUST Abort.</t>
<t>When SUIT_Process_Dependency completes, it forwards the last status code that occurred in the dependency.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="suit-condition-is-dependency"><name>suit-condition-is-dependency</name>
<t>Check whether or not the current component index is present in the dependency list. If the current component is in the dependency list, suit-condition-is-dependency succeeds. Otherwise, it fails. This can be used along with component-id = True to act on all dependencies or on all non-dependency components. See <xref target="creating-manifests"/> for more details.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="suit-condition-dependency-integrity"><name>suit-condition-dependency-integrity</name>
<t>Verify the integrity of a dependency manifest. When a Manifest Processor executes suit-condition-dependency-integrity, it performs the following operations:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>Evaluate any delegation chains</t>
<t>Verify the signature of the manifest hash</t>
<t>Compare the manifest hash to the provided hash</t>
<t>Verify the manifest against the manifest hash</t>
</list></t>
<t>If any of these steps fails, the Manifest Process MUST immediately Abort.</t>
<t>The Manifest Processor MAY cache the results of these operations for later use from the context of the current manifest. The Manifest Processor MUST NOT use cached results from any other manifest context. If the Manifest Processor caches the results of these checks, it MUST eliminate this cache if any Fetch, or Copy operation targets the Dependency Manifest's component ID.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="suit-directive-unlink"><name>suit-directive-unlink</name>
<t>suit-directive-unlink applies to manifests. When the components defined by a manifest are no longer needed, the manifest processor unlinks the manifest to inform the manifest processor that they are no longer needed. The unlink command decrements an implementation-defined reference counter. This reference counter MUST persist across restarts. The reference counter MUST NOT be decremented by a given manifest more than once, and the manifest processor must enforce this. The manifest processor MAY choose to ignore a Unlink directive depending on device policy.</t>
<t>When the reference counter reaches zero, the suit-uninstall command sequence is invoked (see <xref target="suit-uninstall"/>).</t>
<t>suit-directive-unlink is OPTIONAL to implement in manifest processors.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="suit-uninstall"><name>Uninstall</name>
<t>In some systems, particularly with multiple, independent, optional components, it may be that there is a need to uninstall the components that have been installed by a manifest. Where this is expected, the uninstall command sequence can provide the sequence needed to cleanly remove the components defined by the manifest and its dependencies. In general, suit uninstall will contain primarily unlink directives.</t>
<t>WARNING: This can cause faults where there are loose dependencies (e.g., version range matching, see <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-update-management"/>), since a component can be removed while it is depended upon by another component. To avoid dependency faults, a manifest author MAY use explicit dependencies where possible, or a manifest processor MAY track references to loose dependencies via reference counting in the same way as explicit dependencies, as described in <xref target="suit-directive-unlink"/>.</t>
<t>The Uninstall command sequence is not severable, since it must always be available to enable uninstalling.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="creating-manifests"><name>Creating Manifests</name>
<t>This section details a set of templates for creating manifests. These templates explain which parameters, commands, and orders of commands are necessary to achieve a stated goal.</t>
<section anchor="template-dependency"><name>Dependency Template</name>
<t>The goal of the Dependency template is to obtain, verify, and process a dependency manifest as appropriate.</t>
<t>The following commands are added to the shared sequence:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Set Parameters directive (see <xref target="suit-directive-set-parameters"/>) for digest (see Section 8.4.8.6 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>). Note that the digest MUST match the SUIT_Digest in the dependency's suit-authentication-block (See Section 8.3 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>).</t>
</list></t>
<t>The following commands are placed into the dependency resolution sequence:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Set Parameters directive (see <xref target="suit-directive-set-parameters"/>) for URI (see Section 8.4.8.10 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Fetch directive (see Section 8.4.10.4 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Dependency Integrity condition (see <xref target="suit-condition-dependency-integrity"/>)</t>
<t>Process Dependency directive (see <xref target="suit-directive-process-dependency"/>)</t>
</list></t>
<t>Then, the validate sequence contains the following operations:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Dependency Integrity condition (see <xref target="suit-condition-dependency-integrity"/>)</t>
<t>Process Dependency directive (see <xref target="suit-directive-process-dependency"/>)</t>
</list></t>
<t>If any dependency is declared, the dependent MUST populate all command sequences for the current procedure (Update or Invoke).</t>
<t>NOTE: Any changes made to parameters in a dependency persist in the dependent.</t>
<section anchor="composite-manifests"><name>Composite Manifests</name>
<t>An implementer MAY choose to place a dependency's envelope in the envelope of its dependent. The dependent envelope key for the dependency envelope MUST be a text string. The URI for the dependency MUST match the text string key of the dependent's envelope key. It is RECOMMENDED to make the text string key a resolvable URI so that a dependency manifest that is removed from the envelope can still be fetched.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="template-encrypted-manifest"><name>Encrypted Manifest Template</name>
<t>The goal of the Encrypted Manifest template is to fetch and decrypt a manifest so that it can be used as a dependency. To use an encrypted manifest, create a plaintext dependent, and add the encrypted manifest as a dependency. The dependent can include very little information.</t>
<t>NOTE: This template also requires the extensions defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption"/>.</t>
<t>The following commands are added to the shared sequence:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Set Parameters directive (see <xref target="suit-directive-set-parameters"/>) for digest (see Section 8.4.8.6 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>). Note that the digest MUST match the SUIT_Digest in the dependency's suit-authentication-block (See Section 8.3 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>).</t>
</list></t>
<t>The following operations are placed into the dependency resolution block:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Set Parameters directive (see <xref target="suit-directive-set-parameters"/>) for
<list style="symbols">
<t>URI (see Section 8.4.8.9 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Encryption Info (See <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption"/>)</t>
</list></t>
<t>Fetch directive (see Section 8.4.10.4 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Dependency Integrity condition (see <xref target="suit-condition-dependency-integrity"/>)</t>
<t>Process Dependency directive (see <xref target="suit-directive-process-dependency"/>)</t>
</list></t>
<t>Then, the validate block contains the following operations:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Check Image Match condition (see Section 8.4.9.2 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Process Dependency directive (see <xref target="suit-directive-process-dependency"/>)</t>
</list></t>
<t>A plaintext manifest and its encrypted dependency may also form a composite manifest (<xref target="composite-manifests"/>).</t>
</section>
<section anchor="operating-on-multiple-components"><name>Operating on Multiple Components</name>
<t>In order to produce compact encoding, it is efficient to perform operations on multiple components simultaneously. Because Dependency Manifests and Component Images are processed at different times, there is a mechanism to distinguish between these elements: suit-condition-is-manifest. This can be used with suit-directive-try-each to perform operations just on Dependency Manifests or just on Component Images.</t>
<t>For example, to fetch all dependency manifests, the following commands are added to the dependency resolution block:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Set Parameters directive (see <xref target="suit-directive-set-parameters"/>) for
<list style="symbols">
<t>URI (see Section 8.4.8.9 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
</list></t>
<t>Set Component Index directive, with argument "True" (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Try Each Directive
<list style="symbols">
<t>Sequence 0
<list style="symbols">
<t>Condition Is Manifest</t>
<t>Fetch</t>
<t>Dependency Integrity condition (see <xref target="suit-condition-dependency-integrity"/>)</t>
<t>Process Dependency</t>
</list></t>
<t>Sequence 1 (Empty; no commands, succeeds immediately)</t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
<t>Another example is to fetch and validate all Component Images. The image fetch sequence contains the following commands:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Set Parameters directive (see <xref target="suit-directive-set-parameters"/>) for
<list style="symbols">
<t>URI (see Section 8.4.8.9 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
</list></t>
<t>Set Component Index directive, with argument "True" (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Try Each Directive
<list style="symbols">
<t>Sequence 0
<list style="symbols">
<t>Condition Is Manifest</t>
<t>Process Dependency</t>
</list></t>
<t>Sequence 1
<list style="symbols">
<t>Fetch</t>
<t>Condition Image Match</t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
<t>When some components are "installed" or "loaded" it is more productive to use lists of component indices rather than Component Index = True. For example, to install several components, the following commands should be placed in the image install sequence:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Set Parameters directive (see <xref target="suit-directive-set-parameters"/>) for
<list style="symbols">
<t>Source Component (see Section 8.4.8.11 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
</list></t>
<t>Set Component Index directive, with argument containing list of destination component indices (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Copy</t>
<t>Set Component Index directive, with argument containing list dependency component indices (see Section 8.4.10.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/>)</t>
<t>Process Dependency</t>
</list></t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="iana"><name>IANA Considerations</name>
<t>IANA is requested to allocate the following numbers in the listed registries:</t>
<section anchor="suit-command-sequences"><name>SUIT Command Sequences</name>
<texttable>
<ttcol align='left'>Label</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Name</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>
<c>1</c>
<c>Delegation</c>
<c><xref target="ovr-delegation"/></c>
<c>15</c>
<c>Dependency Resolution</c>
<c><xref target="suit-dependency-resolution"/></c>
<c>24</c>
<c>Uninstall</c>
<c><xref target="suit-uninstall"/></c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section anchor="suit-commands"><name>SUIT Commands</name>
<texttable>
<ttcol align='left'>Label</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Name</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>
<c>7</c>
<c>Dependency Integrity</c>
<c><xref target="suit-condition-dependency-integrity"/></c>
<c>8</c>
<c>Is Dependency</c>
<c><xref target="suit-condition-is-dependency"/></c>
<c>11</c>
<c>Process Dependency</c>
<c><xref target="suit-directive-process-dependency"/></c>
<c>19</c>
<c>Set Parameters</c>
<c><xref target="suit-directive-set-parameters"/></c>
<c>33</c>
<c>Unlink</c>
<c><xref target="suit-directive-unlink"/></c>
</texttable>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations"><name>Security Considerations</name>
<t>This document is about a manifest format protecting and describing how to retrieve, install, and invoke firmware images and as such it is part of a larger solution for delivering software updates to devices. A detailed security treatment can be found in the architecture <xref target="RFC9019"/> and in the information model <xref target="RFC9124"/> documents.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title='Normative References'>
<reference anchor='RFC3986'>
<front>
<title>Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax</title>
<author fullname='T. Berners-Lee' initials='T.' surname='Berners-Lee'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='R. Fielding' initials='R.' surname='Fielding'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='L. Masinter' initials='L.' surname='Masinter'><organization/></author>
<date month='January' year='2005'/>
<abstract><t>A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of characters that identifies an abstract or physical resource. This specification defines the generic URI syntax and a process for resolving URI references that might be in relative form, along with guidelines and security considerations for the use of URIs on the Internet. The URI syntax defines a grammar that is a superset of all valid URIs, allowing an implementation to parse the common components of a URI reference without knowing the scheme-specific requirements of every possible identifier. This specification does not define a generative grammar for URIs; that task is performed by the individual specifications of each URI scheme. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='STD' value='66'/>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='3986'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC3986'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC7228'>
<front>
<title>Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks</title>
<author fullname='C. Bormann' initials='C.' surname='Bormann'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='M. Ersue' initials='M.' surname='Ersue'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='A. Keranen' initials='A.' surname='Keranen'><organization/></author>
<date month='May' year='2014'/>
<abstract><t>The Internet Protocol Suite is increasingly used on small devices with severe constraints on power, memory, and processing resources, creating constrained-node networks. This document provides a number of basic terms that have been useful in the standardization work for constrained-node networks.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7228'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC7228'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC8392'>
<front>
<title>CBOR Web Token (CWT)</title>
<author fullname='M. Jones' initials='M.' surname='Jones'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='E. Wahlstroem' initials='E.' surname='Wahlstroem'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='S. Erdtman' initials='S.' surname='Erdtman'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='H. Tschofenig' initials='H.' surname='Tschofenig'><organization/></author>
<date month='May' year='2018'/>
<abstract><t>CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact means of representing claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a CWT are encoded in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added application-layer security protection. A claim is a piece of information asserted about a subject and is represented as a name/value pair consisting of a claim name and a claim value. CWT is derived from JSON Web Token (JWT) but uses CBOR rather than JSON.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8392'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8392'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC8747'>
<front>
<title>Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs)</title>
<author fullname='M. Jones' initials='M.' surname='Jones'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='L. Seitz' initials='L.' surname='Seitz'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='G. Selander' initials='G.' surname='Selander'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='S. Erdtman' initials='S.' surname='Erdtman'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='H. Tschofenig' initials='H.' surname='Tschofenig'><organization/></author>
<date month='March' year='2020'/>
<abstract><t>This specification describes how to declare in a CBOR Web Token (CWT) (which is defined by RFC 8392) that the presenter of the CWT possesses a particular proof-of-possession key. Being able to prove possession of a key is also sometimes described as being the holder-of-key. This specification provides equivalent functionality to "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)" (RFC 7800) but using Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and CWTs rather than JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) and JSON Web Tokens (JWTs).</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8747'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8747'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC9019'>
<front>
<title>A Firmware Update Architecture for Internet of Things</title>
<author fullname='B. Moran' initials='B.' surname='Moran'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='H. Tschofenig' initials='H.' surname='Tschofenig'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='D. Brown' initials='D.' surname='Brown'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='M. Meriac' initials='M.' surname='Meriac'><organization/></author>
<date month='April' year='2021'/>
<abstract><t>Vulnerabilities in Internet of Things (IoT) devices have raised the need for a reliable and secure firmware update mechanism suitable for devices with resource constraints. Incorporating such an update mechanism is a fundamental requirement for fixing vulnerabilities, but it also enables other important capabilities such as updating configuration settings and adding new functionality.</t><t>In addition to the definition of terminology and an architecture, this document provides the motivation for the standardization of a manifest format as a transport-agnostic means for describing and protecting firmware updates.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='9019'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC9019'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC9124'>
<front>
<title>A Manifest Information Model for Firmware Updates in Internet of Things (IoT) Devices</title>
<author fullname='B. Moran' initials='B.' surname='Moran'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='H. Tschofenig' initials='H.' surname='Tschofenig'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='H. Birkholz' initials='H.' surname='Birkholz'><organization/></author>
<date month='January' year='2022'/>
<abstract><t>Vulnerabilities with Internet of Things (IoT) devices have raised the need for a reliable and secure firmware update mechanism that is also suitable for constrained devices. Ensuring that devices function and remain secure over their service lifetime requires such an update mechanism to fix vulnerabilities, update configuration settings, and add new functionality.</t><t>One component of such a firmware update is a concise and machine-processable metadata document, or manifest, that describes the firmware image(s) and offers appropriate protection. This document describes the information that must be present in the manifest.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='9124'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC9124'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-suit-manifest'>
<front>
<title>A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)-based Serialization Format for the Software Updates for Internet of Things (SUIT) Manifest</title>
<author fullname='Brendan Moran' initials='B.' surname='Moran'>
<organization>Arm Limited</organization>
</author>
<author fullname='Hannes Tschofenig' initials='H.' surname='Tschofenig'>
<organization>Arm Limited</organization>
</author>
<author fullname='Henk Birkholz' initials='H.' surname='Birkholz'>
<organization>Fraunhofer SIT</organization>
</author>
<author fullname='Koen Zandberg' initials='K.' surname='Zandberg'>
<organization>Inria</organization>
</author>
<author fullname='Øyvind Rønningstad' initials='O.' surname='Rønningstad'>
<organization>Nordic Semiconductor</organization>
</author>
<date day='27' month='February' year='2023'/>
<abstract>
<t> This specification describes the format of a manifest. A manifest is
a bundle of metadata about code/data obtained by a recipient (chiefly
the firmware for an IoT device), where to find the that code/data,
the devices to which it applies, and cryptographic information
protecting the manifest. Software updates and Trusted Invocation
both tend to use sequences of common operations, so the manifest
encodes those sequences of operations, rather than declaring the
metadata.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-suit-manifest-22'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC2119'>
<front>
<title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author fullname='S. Bradner' initials='S.' surname='Bradner'><organization/></author>
<date month='March' year='1997'/>
<abstract><t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14'/>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2119'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC2119'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC8174'>
<front>
<title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
<author fullname='B. Leiba' initials='B.' surname='Leiba'><organization/></author>
<date month='May' year='2017'/>
<abstract><t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14'/>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8174'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8174'/>
</reference>
</references>
<references title='Informative References'>
<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-suit-update-management'>
<front>
<title>Update Management Extensions for Software Updates for Internet of Things (SUIT) Manifests</title>
<author fullname='Brendan Moran' initials='B.' surname='Moran'>
<organization>Arm Limited</organization>
</author>
<date day='27' month='April' year='2023'/>
<abstract>
<t> This specification describes extensions to the SUIT manifest format
defined in [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]. These extensions allow an
update author, update distributor or device operator to more
precisely control the distribution and installation of updates to IoT
devices. These extensions also provide a mechanism to inform a
management system of Software Identifier and Software Bill Of
Materials information about an updated device.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-suit-update-management-02'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption'>
<front>
<title>Encrypted Payloads in SUIT Manifests</title>
<author fullname='Hannes Tschofenig' initials='H.' surname='Tschofenig'>
</author>
<author fullname='Russ Housley' initials='R.' surname='Housley'>
<organization>Vigil Security, LLC</organization>
</author>
<author fullname='Brendan Moran' initials='B.' surname='Moran'>
<organization>Arm Limited</organization>
</author>
<author fullname='David Brown' initials='D.' surname='Brown'>
<organization>Linaro</organization>
</author>
<author fullname='Ken Takayama' initials='K.' surname='Takayama'>
<organization>SECOM CO., LTD.</organization>
</author>
<date day='13' month='April' year='2023'/>
<abstract>
<t> This document specifies techniques for encrypting software, firmware
and personalization data by utilizing the IETF SUIT manifest. Key
agreement is provided by ephemeral-static (ES) Diffie-Hellman (DH)
and AES Key Wrap (AES-KW). ES-DH uses public key cryptography while
AES-KW uses a pre-shared key-encryption key. Encryption of the
plaintext is accomplished with conventional symmetric key
cryptography.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-suit-firmware-encryption-12'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-teep-architecture'>
<front>
<title>Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) Architecture</title>
<author fullname='Mingliang Pei' initials='M.' surname='Pei'>
<organization>Broadcom</organization>
</author>
<author fullname='Hannes Tschofenig' initials='H.' surname='Tschofenig'>
<organization>Arm Limited</organization>
</author>
<author fullname='Dave Thaler' initials='D.' surname='Thaler'>
<organization>Microsoft</organization>
</author>
<author fullname='Dave Wheeler' initials='D. M.' surname='Wheeler'>
<organization>Amazon</organization>
</author>
<date day='24' month='October' year='2022'/>
<abstract>
<t> A Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) is an environment that enforces
that any code within that environment cannot be tampered with, and
that any data used by such code cannot be read or tampered with by
any code outside that environment. This architecture document
motivates the design and standardization of a protocol for managing
the lifecycle of trusted applications running inside such a TEE.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-teep-architecture-19'/>
</reference>
</references>
<section anchor="full-cddl"><name>A. Full CDDL</name>
<t>To be valid, the following CDDL MUST be appended to the SUIT Manifest CDDL. The SUIT CDDL is defined in Appendix A of <xref target="I-D.ietf-suit-manifest"/></t>
<figure><sourcecode type="CDDL"><![CDATA[
$$SUIT_Envelope_Extensions //=
(suit-delegation => bstr .cbor SUIT_Delegation)
$$SUIT_Envelope_Extensions //= (
suit-integrated-dependency-key => bstr .cbor SUIT_Envelope)
SUIT_Delegation = [ + [ + bstr .cbor CWT ] ]
CWT = SUIT_Authentication_Block
$$SUIT_Manifest_Extensions //=
(suit-manifest-component-id => SUIT_Component_Identifier)
$$SUIT_severable-members-extensions //=
(suit-dependency-resolution => bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence)
$$unseverable-manifest-member-extensions //=
(suit-uninstall => bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence)
suit-integrated-dependency-key = tstr
$$severable-manifest-members-choice-extensions //= (
suit-dependency-resolution =>
bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence / SUIT_Digest)
$$SUIT_Common-extensions //= (
suit-dependencies => SUIT_Dependencies
)
SUIT_Dependencies = {
+ uint => SUIT_Dependency_Metadata
}
SUIT_Dependency_Metadata = {
? suit-dependency-prefix => SUIT_Component_Identifier
* $$SUIT_Dependency_Extensions
}
SUIT_Condition //= (
suit-condition-is-dependency, SUIT_Rep_Policy)
SUIT_Directive //= (
suit-directive-process-dependency, SUIT_Rep_Policy)
SUIT_Directive //= (suit-directive-set-parameters,
{+ $$SUIT_Parameters})
SUIT_Directive //= (
suit-directive-unlink, SUIT_Rep_Policy)
suit-manifest-component-id = 5
suit-delegation = 1
suit-dependency-resolution = 15
suit-uninstall = 24
suit-dependencies = 1
suit-dependency-prefix = 1
suit-condition-dependency-integrity = 7
suit-condition-is-dependency = 8
suit-directive-process-dependency = 11
suit-directive-set-parameters = 19
suit-directive-unlink = 33
]]></sourcecode></figure>
</section>
<section anchor="examples"><name>B. Examples</name>
<t>The following examples demonstrate a small subset of the functionalities in this document.</t>
<t>The examples are signed using the following ECDSA secp256r1 key:</t>
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
-----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY-----
MIGHAgEAMBMGByqGSM49AgEGCCqGSM49AwEHBG0wawIBAQQgApZYjZCUGLM50VBC
CjYStX+09jGmnyJPrpDLTz/hiXOhRANCAASEloEarguqq9JhVxie7NomvqqL8Rtv
P+bitWWchdvArTsfKktsCYExwKNtrNHXi9OB3N+wnAUtszmR23M4tKiW
-----END PRIVATE KEY-----
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>The corresponding public key can be used to verify these examples:</t>
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MFkwEwYHKoZIzj0CAQYIKoZIzj0DAQcDQgAEhJaBGq4LqqvSYVcYnuzaJr6qi/Eb