SUIT B. Moran Internet-Draft Arm Limited Intended status: Standards Track K. Takayama Expires: 5 September 2024 SECOM CO., LTD. 4 March 2024 SUIT Manifest Extensions for Multiple Trust Domains draft-ietf-suit-trust-domains-06 Abstract This specification describes extensions to the SUIT Manifest format (as defined in [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. 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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 5 September 2024. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Changes to SUIT Workflow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Changes to Manifest Metadata Structure . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Changes to Required Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Changes to Manifest Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2.1. Manifest Component ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2.2. SUIT_Dependencies Manifest Element . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Changes to Abstract Machine Description . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4. Processing Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.4.1. Multiple Manifest Processors . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.5. Dependency Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.6. Added and Modified Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.6.1. suit-directive-set-parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.6.2. suit-directive-process-dependency . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.6.3. suit-condition-is-dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.6.4. suit-condition-dependency-integrity . . . . . . . . . 16 5.6.5. suit-directive-unlink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Uninstall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Staging and Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.1. suit-candidate-verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. Creating Manifests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.1. Dependency Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.1.1. Integrated Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.2. Encrypted Manifest Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.3. Overriding Encryption Info Template . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8.4. Operating on Multiple Components . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.1. SUIT Envelope Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.2. SUIT Manifest Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.3. SUIT Common Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.4. SUIT Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 Appendix A. A. Full CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Appendix B. B. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 B.1. Example 0: Process Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 B.2. Example 1: Integrated Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 1. Introduction Devices that go beyond single-signer update require more complex rules for deploying software updates. For example, devices may require: * software Components from multiple software signing authorities. * a mechanism to remove an unneeded Component * single-object Dependencies * a partly encrypted Manifest so that distribution does not reveal private information * installation performed by a different execution mode than payload fetch 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: * A device may contain a processor in its radio in addition to the primary processor. These two processors may have separate Software with separate signing authorities. Dependencies allow the Software for the primary processor to reference a Manifest signed by a different authority. * 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. * A device operator provides a device with some additional configuration. The device operator wants to test their configuration with each new Software version before releasing it. The configuration is delivered as a binary in the same way as a Software Image. The device operator references the Software Manifest from the Software author in their own Manifest which also defines the configuration. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 * An Author wants to entrust a Distributor to provide devices with firmware decryption keys, but not permit the Distributor to sign code. Dependencies allow the Distributor to deliver a device's decryption information without also granting code signing authority. * A Trusted Application Manager (TAM) wants to distribute personalisation information to a Trusted Execution Environment in addition to a Trusted Application (TA), but does not have code signing authority. Dependencies enable the TAM to construct an update containing the personalisation information and a dependency on the TA, but leaves the TA signed by the TA's Author. By using Dependencies, Components such as Software, configuration, and other Resource data authenticated by different Trust Anchors can be delivered to devices. 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 [I-D.ietf-teep-architecture]. This specification extends the SUIT Manifest specification ([I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]). 2. Conventions and Terminology 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Additionally, the following terminology is used throughout this document: * SUIT: Software Update for the Internet of Things, also the IETF working group for this standard. * Payload: A piece of information to be delivered. Typically Firmware/Software, configuration, or Resource data such as text or images. * Resource: A piece of information that is used to construct a Payload. * 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. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 * Envelope: A container with the Manifest, an authentication wrapper with cryptographic information protecting the Manifest, authorization information, and severable elements (see Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]). * Update: One or more Manifests that describe one or more Payloads. * Update Authority: The owner of a cryptographic key used to sign Updates, trusted by Recipients. * Recipient: The system that receives and processes a Manifest. * Manifest Processor: A component of the Recipient that consumes Manifests and executes the Commands in the Manifest. * Component: An updatable logical block of the Firmware, Software, configuration, or data of the Recipient. * Component Set: A group of interdependent Components that must be updated simultaneously. * Command: A Condition or a Directive. * Condition: A test for a property of the Recipient or its Components. * Directive: An action for the Recipient to perform. * Trusted Invocation: A process by which a system ensures that only trusted code is executed, for example secure boot or launching a Trusted Application. * 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). * Record: The result of a Command and any metadata about it. * Report: A list of Records. * Procedure: The process of invoking one or more sequences of Commands. * Update Procedure: A superset of Staging Procedure and Installation Procedure. * Staging Procedure: A procedure that fetches dependencies and images referenced by an Update and stores them to a Staging Area. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 * Installation Procedure: A procedure that installs dependencies and images stored in a Staging Area; copying (and optionally, transforming them) into an active Image storage location. * Invocation Procedure: A Procedure in which a Recipient verifies Dependencies and Images, loading Images, and invokes one or more Image. * Staging Area: A Component or group of Components that are used for transient storage of Images between fetch and installation. Images in this area are opaque, except for use by the Installation Procedure. * Software: Instructions and data that allow a Recipient to perform a useful function. * Firmware: Software that is typically changed infrequently, stored in nonvolatile memory, and small enough to apply to [RFC7228] Class 0-2 devices. * 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. * Slot: One of several possible storage locations for a given Component, typically used in A/B Image systems * Abort: An event in which the Manifest Processor immediately halts execution of the current Procedure. It creates a Record of an error Condition. * Trust Anchor: A Trust Anchor, as defined in [RFC6024], represents an authoritative entity via a public key and associated data. The public key is used to verify digital signatures, and the associated data is used to constrain the types of information for which the Trust Anchor is authoritative. 3. Changes to SUIT Workflow Model The use of the features presented for use with multiple trust domains requires some augmentation of the workflow presented in the SUIT Manifest specification ([I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]): One additional assumption is added for the Update Procedure: * All Dependency Manifests must be present before any Payload is fetched. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 One additional assumption is added to the Invocation Procedure: * All Dependencies must be validated prior to loading. Steps 3 and 5 are added to the expected installation workflow of a Recipient: 1. Verify the signature of the Manifest. 2. Verify the applicability of the Manifest. 3. Resolve Dependencies. 4. Fetch Payload(s). 5. Verify Candidate. 6. Install Payload(s). 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. 4. Changes to Manifest Metadata Structure To accommodate the additional metadata needed to enable these features, the Envelope and Manifest have several new elements added. The Envelope gains one more elements: Integrated Dependencies. The Common metadata section in the Manifest also gains a list of Dependencies. The new metadata structure is shown below. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 7] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 +-------------------------+ | Envelope | +-------------------------+ | 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 | | )) | +-----------------------+ 5. Dependencies A Dependency is another SUIT_Envelope that describes additional Components. As described in Section 1, Dependencies enable several common use cases. 5.1. Changes to Required Checks This section augments the definitions in Required Checks (Section 6.2) of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]. 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 Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 8] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 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. Components that should be treated as Dependency Manifests are identified in the suit-common metadata. See Section 5.2 for details. If the Manifest contains more than one Component and/or Dependency, each Command sequence MUST begin with a Set Component Index Command. If a Dependency is specified, then the Manifest processor MUST perform the following checks: 1. The dependent MUST populate all Command sequences for the current Procedure (Update or Invoke). 2. At the end of each section in the dependent: The corresponding section in each Dependency has been executed. If the interpreter does not support Dependencies and a Manifest specifies a Dependency, then the interpreter MUST Abort. 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 a single Manifest and all its Dependencies that together: 1. have sufficient permissions imparted by their signatures 2. specify a digest and a Payload for every Component in the Component Set. The single dependent Manifest is sometimes called a Root Manifest. 5.2. Changes to Manifest Structure This section augments the Manifest Structure (Section 8.4) in [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 9] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 5.2.1. Manifest Component ID 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. The following CDDL describes the Manifest Component ID: $$SUIT_Manifest_Extensions //= (suit-manifest-component-id => SUIT_Component_Identifier) 5.2.2. SUIT_Dependencies Manifest Element The suit-common section, as described in [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest], Section 8.4.5 is extended with a map of Component indices that indicate a Dependency Manifest. The keys of the map are the Component indices and the values of the map are any extra metadata needed to describe those Dependency Manifests. Because some operations treat Dependency Manifests differently from other Components, it is necessary to identify them. SUIT_Dependencies identifies which Components from suit-components (see Section 8.4.5 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) are to be treated as Dependency Manifest Envelopes. SUIT_Dependencies is a map of Components, referenced by Component Index. Optionally, a Component prefix or other metadata may be delivered with the Component index. The CDDL for suit-dependencies is shown below: $$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 } 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. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 10] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 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. 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. The suit-dependency-prefix element contains a SUIT_Component_Identifier (see Section 8.4.5.1 of [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. 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. 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 Section 5.4.1. 5.3. Changes to Abstract Machine Description This section augments the Abstract Machine Description (Section 6.4) in [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: Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 11] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 * Five new Commands are introduced: - Set Parameters - Process Dependency - Is Dependency - Dependency Integrity - Unlink * 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 [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest] MAY have additional restrictions. * Dependencies are processed in lockstep 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. * When a Manifest Processor supports multiple independent Components, they MAY have shared Dependencies. * When a Manifest Processor supports shared Dependencies, it MUST support reference counting of those Dependencies. * When reference counting is used, Components MUST NOT be overwritten. The Manifest Uninstall section must be called, then the component MUST be Unlinked. 5.4. Processing Dependencies As described in Section 5.1, 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. When a Process Dependency Command is encountered, the Manifest processor: 1. Checks whether the map of Dependencies contains an entry for the current Component Index. If not present, it causes an immediate Abort. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 12] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 2. Checks whether the Dependency has been the target of a Dependency integrity check. If not, it causes an immediate Abort. 3. Loads the specified Component as a Dependency Manifest Envelope. 4. Authenticates the Dependency Manifest. 5. Executes the common-sequence section of the Dependency Manifest. 6. Executes the section of the Dependency Manifest that corresponds to the currently executing section of the dependent. If the specified Dependency does not contain the current section, Process Dependency succeeds immediately. The interpreter also performs the checks described in Section 5.1 to ensure that the dependent is processing the Dependency correctly. 5.4.1. Multiple Manifest Processors 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 Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) technology. Trust domains might also be divided into separate processors and memory spaces, with a communication interface between them. 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. 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 [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. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 13] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 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. 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. 5.5. Dependency Resolution The Dependency Resolution Command Sequence is a container for the Commands needed to acquire and process the Dependencies of the current Manifest. 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. 5.6. Added and Modified Commands All Commands are modified in that they can also target Dependencies. However, Set Component Index has a larger modification. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 14] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 +================+====================================+ | Command Name | Semantic of the Operation | +================+====================================+ | Set Parameters | current.params[k] := v if not k in | | | current.params for-each k,v in arg | +----------------+------------------------------------+ | Process | exec(current[common]); | | Dependency | exec(current[current-segment]) | +----------------+------------------------------------+ | Dependency | verify(current, | | Integrity | current.params[image-digest]) | +----------------+------------------------------------+ | Is Dependency | assert(current exists in | | | Dependencies) | +----------------+------------------------------------+ | Unlink | unlink(current) | +----------------+------------------------------------+ Table 1 5.6.1. suit-directive-set-parameters Similar 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. Available Parameters are defined in [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest], section 8.4.8. 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. suit-directive-set-parameters does not specify a reporting policy. 5.6.2. suit-directive-process-dependency 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 "Payload Fetch," this will execute "Common metadata" in the current Dependency, then "Payload Fetch" in the current Dependency. Once this is complete, the Command following suit-directive-process-dependency will be processed. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 15] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 If the current Component index does not have an entry in the suit- dependencies map, then this Command MUST Abort. If the current Component index has not been the target of a suit- condition-dependency-integrity, then this Command MUST Abort. If the current Component is True, then this Directive applies to all Dependencies. If the current section is "Common metadata," then the Command sequence MUST Abort. When SUIT_Process_Dependency completes, it forwards the last status code that occurred in the Dependency. 5.6.3. suit-condition-is-dependency Check whether 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 Section 8 for more details. 5.6.4. suit-condition-dependency-integrity Verify the integrity of a Dependency Manifest. When a Manifest Processor executes suit-condition-dependency-integrity, it performs the following operations: 1. Verify the signature of the Manifest hash 2. Compare the Manifest hash to the provided hash 3. Verify the Manifest against the Manifest hash If any of these steps fails, the Manifest Process MUST immediately Abort. 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. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 16] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 5.6.5. suit-directive-unlink A manifest processor that supports multiple independent root manifests MUST support suit-directive-unlink. When a Component is no longer needed, the Manifest processor unlinks the Component to inform the Manifest processor that it is no longer needed. If a Manifest is no longer needed, the Manifest Processor unlinks it. This causes the Manifest Processor to execute the suit-uninstall section of the unlinked Manifest, after which it decrements the reference count of the unlinked Manifest. The suit-uninstall section of a manifest typically contains an unlink of all its dependencies and components. All components, including Manifests must be unlinked before deletion or overwrite. If the reference count of a component is non-zero, any command that alters that component MUST cause an immediate ABORT. Affected commands are: * suit-directive-copy * suit-directive-fetch * suit-directive-write 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 an Unlink Directive depending on device policy. When the reference counter of a Manifest reaches zero, the suit- uninstall Command sequence is invoked (see Section 6). suit-directive-unlink is OPTIONAL to implement in Manifest processors, but Manifest processors that support multiple independent Root Manifests MUST support suit-directive-unlink. 6. Uninstall 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, the suit-uninstall Command Sequence will contain primarily unlink Directives. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 17] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 WARNING: This can cause faults where there are loose Dependencies (e.g., version range matching, see [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 Section 5.6.5. The suit-uninstall Command Sequence is not severable, since it must always be available to enable uninstalling. 7. Staging and Installation In order to coordinate between download and installation in different trust domains, the Update Procedure defined in [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest], Section 8.4.6 is divided into two sub- procedures: * The Staging Procedure: This procedure is responsible for dependency resolution and acquiring all payloads required for the Update to proceed. It is composed of two command sequences - suit-dependency-resolution - suit-payload-fetch * The Installation Procedure: This procedure is responsible for validating staged components and installing them. It is composed of: - suit-candidate-validation - suit-install This extension is backwards compatible when used with a Manifest Processor that supports the Update Procedure but = does not support the Staging Procedure and Installation Procedure: the payload-fetch command sequence already contains suit-condition-image tests for each payload (see [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest], section 7.3) which means that images are already validated when suit-install is invoked. This makes suit-candidate-verification OPTIONAL to implement and OPTIONAL to parse. The Staging and Installation Procedures are only required when Staging occurs in a different trust domain to Installation. Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 18] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 7.1. suit-candidate-verification This command sequence is responsible for verifying that all elements of an update are present and correct prior to installation. This is only required when Installation occurs in a trust domain different from Staging, such as an installer invoked by the bootloader. 8. Creating Manifests 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. 8.1. Dependency Template The goal of the Dependency template is to obtain, verify, and process a Dependency Manifest as appropriate. The following Commands are added to the shared sequence: * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for digest (see Section 8.4.8.6 of [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 [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]). The following Commands are placed into the Dependency resolution sequence: * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for a URI (see Section 8.4.8.10 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Fetch Directive (see Section 8.4.10.4 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Dependency Integrity Condition (see Section 5.6.4) * Process Dependency Directive (see Section 5.6.2) Then, the validate sequence contains the following operations: * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 19] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 * Dependency Integrity Condition (see Section 5.6.4) * Process Dependency Directive (see Section 5.6.2) If any Dependency is declared, the dependent MUST populate all Command sequences for the current Procedure (Update or Invoke). NOTE: Any changes made to Parameters in a Dependency persist in the dependent. 8.1.1. Integrated Dependencies 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. 8.2. Encrypted Manifest Template 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. NOTE: This template also requires the extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption]. The following Commands are added to the shared sequence: * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for digest (see Section 8.4.8.6 of [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 [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]). The following operations are placed into the Dependency resolution block: * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 20] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 * Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for - URI (see Section 8.4.8.9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) - Encryption Info (See [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption]) * Fetch Directive (see Section 8.4.10.4 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Dependency Integrity Condition (see Section 5.6.4) * Process Dependency Directive (see Section 5.6.2) Then, the validate block contains the following operations: * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Check Image Match Condition (see Section 8.4.9.2 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Process Dependency Directive (see Section 5.6.2) A plaintext Manifest and its encrypted Dependency may also form a composite Manifest (Section 8.1.1). 8.3. Overriding Encryption Info Template The goal of overriding the Encryption Info template is to separate the role of generating encrypted Payload and Encryption Info with Key-Encryption Key addressing Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption]. As an example, this template describes two manifests: - The dependent Manifest created by the Distribution System contains Encryption Info, allowing the Device to generate the Content-Encryption Key. - The dependency Manifest created by the Author contains Commands to decrypt the encrypted Payload using Encryption Info above and to validate the plaintext Payload with SUIT_Digest. NOTE: This template also requires the extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption]. The following operations are placed into the Dependency resolution block of dependent Manifest: * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at dependency Manifest Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 21] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 * Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for - Image Digest (see Section 8.4.8.6 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) - URI (see Section 8.4.8.9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) of dependency Manifest * Fetch Directive (see Section 8.4.10.4 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Dependency Integrity Condition (see Section 5.6.4) The following Commands are placed into the Fetch/Install block of dependent Manifest * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at encrypted Payload * Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for - URI (see Section 8.4.8.9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at dependency Manifest * Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for - Encryption Info (See [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption]) * Process Dependency Directive (see Section 5.6.2) The following Commands are placed into the same block of dependency Manifest: * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at encrypted Payload * Fetch Directive (see Section 8.4.10.4 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at to be decrypted Payload * Override Parameters Directive (see Section 8.4.10.3 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) for - Source Component (see Section 8.4.8.11 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at encrypted Payload Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 22] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 * Copy Directive (see Section 8.4.10.5 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) consuming the Encryption Info above The Distribution System can Set the Parameter URI in the Fetch/ Install block of dependent Manifest if it wants to overwrite the URI of encrypted Payload. Because the Author and the Distribution System have different roles and MAY be separate entities, it is highly RECOMMENDED to leverage permissions (see Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]). For example, The Device can protect itself from attacker who breaches the Distribution System by allowing only the Author's Manifest to modify the Component of (to be) decrypted Payload. 8.4. Operating on Multiple Components 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-dependency. This can be used with suit-directive-try- each to perform operations just on Dependency Manifests or just on Component Images. For example, to fetch all Dependency Manifests, the following Commands are added to the Dependency resolution block: * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for a URI (see Section 8.4.8.9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Set Component Index Directive, with argument "True" (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Try Each Directive - Sequence 0 o Condition Is Dependency Manifest o Fetch o Dependency Integrity Condition (see Section 5.6.4) o Process Dependency Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 23] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 - Sequence 1 (Empty; no Commands, succeeds immediately) Another example is to fetch and validate all Component Images. The Image fetch sequence contains the following Commands: * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for a URI (see Section 8.4.8.9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Set Component Index Directive, with argument "True" (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Try Each Directive - Sequence 0 o Condition Is Dependency Manifest o Process Dependency - Sequence 1 o Fetch o Condition Image Match 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: * Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for the Source Component (see Section 8.4.8.11 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Set Component Index Directive, with argument containing list of destination Component indices (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) * Copy * Set Component Index Directive, with argument containing list Dependency Component indices (see Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 24] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 * Process Dependency 9. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to allocate the following numbers in the listed registries created by draft-ietf-suit-manifest: 9.1. SUIT Envelope Elements +=======+========================+=============+ | Label | Name | Reference | +=======+========================+=============+ | 15 | Dependency Resolution | Section 5.5 | +-------+------------------------+-------------+ | 18 | Candidate Verification | Section 7.1 | +-------+------------------------+-------------+ Table 2 9.2. SUIT Manifest Elements +=======+=======================+===============+ | Label | Name | Reference | +=======+=======================+===============+ | 5 | Manifest Component ID | Section 5.2.1 | +-------+-----------------------+---------------+ | 15 | Dependency Resolution | Section 5.5 | +-------+-----------------------+---------------+ | 24 | Uninstall | Section 6 | +-------+-----------------------+---------------+ Table 3 9.3. SUIT Common Elements +=======+==============+===============+ | Label | Name | Reference | +=======+==============+===============+ | 1 | Dependencies | Section 5.2.2 | +-------+--------------+---------------+ Table 4 Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 25] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 9.4. SUIT Commands +=======+======================+===============+ | Label | Name | Reference | +=======+======================+===============+ | 7 | Dependency Integrity | Section 5.6.4 | +-------+----------------------+---------------+ | 8 | Is Dependency | Section 5.6.3 | +-------+----------------------+---------------+ | 11 | Process Dependency | Section 5.6.2 | +-------+----------------------+---------------+ | 19 | Set Parameters | Section 5.6.1 | +-------+----------------------+---------------+ | 33 | Unlink | Section 5.6.5 | +-------+----------------------+---------------+ Table 5 10. Security Considerations This document is about a Manifest format protecting and describing how to retrieve, install, and invoke 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 [RFC9019] and in the information model [RFC9124] documents. 11. References 11.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest] Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., Birkholz, H., Zandberg, K., and O. Rønningstad, "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-25, 5 February 2024, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, . Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 26] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 [RFC6024] Reddy, R. and C. Wallace, "Trust Anchor Management Requirements", RFC 6024, DOI 10.17487/RFC6024, October 2010, . [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig, "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392, May 2018, . [RFC8747] Jones, M., Seitz, L., Selander, G., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig, "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs)", RFC 8747, DOI 10.17487/RFC8747, March 2020, . [RFC9019] Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., Brown, D., and M. Meriac, "A Firmware Update Architecture for Internet of Things", RFC 9019, DOI 10.17487/RFC9019, April 2021, . [RFC9124] Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., and H. Birkholz, "A Manifest Information Model for Firmware Updates in Internet of Things (IoT) Devices", RFC 9124, DOI 10.17487/RFC9124, January 2022, . 11.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption] Tschofenig, H., Housley, R., Moran, B., Brown, D., and K. Takayama, "Encrypted Payloads in SUIT Manifests", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-suit-firmware- encryption-19, 3 March 2024, . Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 27] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 [I-D.ietf-suit-update-management] Moran, B. and K. Takayama, "Update Management Extensions for Software Updates for Internet of Things (SUIT) Manifests", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- suit-update-management-05, 8 November 2023, . [I-D.ietf-teep-architecture] Pei, M., Tschofenig, H., Thaler, D., and D. M. Wheeler, "Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-teep-architecture-19, 24 October 2022, . Appendix A. A. Full CDDL To be valid, the following CDDL MUST be appended to the SUIT Manifest CDDL. The SUIT CDDL is defined in Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest] $$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) $$SUIT_severable-members-extensions //= (suit-dependency-resolution => bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence) $$SUIT_severable-members-extensions //= (suit-candidate-verification => 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) Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 28] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 $$SUIT_Common-extensions //= ( suit-dependencies => SUIT_Dependencies ) SUIT_Dependencies = { + uint => SUIT_Dependency_Metadata } SUIT_Dependency_Metadata = { ? suit-dependency-prefix => SUIT_Component_Identifier * $$SUIT_Dependency_Extensions } SUIT_Condition //= ( suit-condition-dependency-integrity, SUIT_Rep_Policy) 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-candidate-verification = 18 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 Appendix B. B. Examples The following examples demonstrate a small subset of the functionalities in this document. The examples are signed using the following ECDSA secp256r1 key: Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 29] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 -----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY----- MIGHAgEAMBMGByqGSM49AgEGCCqGSM49AwEHBG0wawIBAQQgApZYjZCUGLM50VBC CjYStX+09jGmnyJPrpDLTz/hiXOhRANCAASEloEarguqq9JhVxie7NomvqqL8Rtv P+bitWWchdvArTsfKktsCYExwKNtrNHXi9OB3N+wnAUtszmR23M4tKiW -----END PRIVATE KEY----- The corresponding public key can be used to verify these examples: -----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY----- MFkwEwYHKoZIzj0CAQYIKoZIzj0DAQcDQgAEhJaBGq4LqqvSYVcYnuzaJr6qi/Eb bz/m4rVlnIXbwK07HypLbAmBMcCjbazR14vTgdzfsJwFLbM5kdtzOLSolg== -----END PUBLIC KEY----- Each example uses SHA256 as the digest function. B.1. Example 0: Process Dependency This example uses functionalities: * manifest component id * dependency resolution * process dependency / SUIT_Envelope_Tagged / 107({ / authentication-wrapper / 2: << [ << [ / digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /, / digest-bytes: / h'4874ADC80A9128A2B2057F5FE59C45F8ED10A9BF9C5308FCF951B8BBAF434B95' ] >>, << / COSE_Sign1_Tagged / 18([ / protected: / << { / algorithm-id / 1: -7 / ES256 / } >>, / unprotected: / {}, / payload: / null, / signature: / h'C257E23A34960BE215BB9B927A5A3CEEDD675DFD81AE6E55A66FDD2209886889 1DF42D71ADB962A64CC008AEF9465DA2153CCF383F00B505F079DB540F64B916' ]) >> ] >>, / manifest / 3: << { / manifest-version / 1: 1, / manifest-sequence-number / 2: 0, / common / 3: << { / dependencies / 1: { Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 30] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 / component-index / 1: { / dependency-prefix / 1: [ 'dependent.suit' ] } }, / components / 2: [ [ '10' ] ] } >>, / manifest-component-id / 5: [ 'depending.suit' ], / invoke / 9: << [ / directive-set-component-index / 12, 0, / directive-override-parameters / 20, { / parameter-invoke-args / 23: 'cat 00 10' }, / directive-invoke / 23, 15 ] >>, / dependency-resolution / 15: << [ / directive-set-component-index / 12, 1, / directive-override-parameters / 20, { / parameter-image-digest / 3: << [ / digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /, / digest-bytes: / h'6C86246B90D644F021671F6D42523B2CB5E156F764BE618AA46BFCD0DB23E768' ] >>, / parameter-image-size / 14: 352, / parameter-uri / 21: "http://example.com/dependent.suit" }, / directive-fetch / 21, 2, / condition-image-match / 3, 15 ] >>, / install / 17: << [ / directive-set-component-index / 12, 1, / directive-override-parameters / 20, { / parameter-image-digest / 3: << [ / digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /, / digest-bytes: / h'6EA128D7BB19B86F77C4227F2A29F22026A41958ACC45CC0A35BA388B13E2F51' ] >> }, / condition-dependency-integrity / 7, 15, / directive-process-dependency / 11, 0, Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 31] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 / directive-set-component-index / 12, 0, / directive-override-parameters / 20, { / parameter-content / 18: ' in multiple trust domains' }, / directive-write / 18, 15 ] >> } >> }) Total size of Envelope with COSE authentication object: 374 Envelope with COSE authentication object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xample 1: Integrated Dependency * manifest component id * dependency resolution * process dependency * integrated dependency / SUIT_Envelope_Tagged / 107({ / authentication-wrapper / 2: << [ << [ / digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /, / digest-bytes: / h'318EAD5F671A6D2593D7ADB7B6CCADC49F72704507004F297A25AF16A48A2111' ] >>, << / COSE_Sign1_Tagged / 18([ / protected: / << { / algorithm-id / 1: -7 / ES256 / } >>, Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 32] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 / unprotected: / {}, / payload: / null, / signature: / h'287D5AAB44D08A34954663942B2732825426893ACD735BF3A79B8B5B38EC3C99 50D917D72D5586867C8FF58CF5827B0C2B94952359C3971DBF202B0774627DC3' ]) >> ] >>, / manifest / 3: << { / manifest-version / 1: 1, / manifest-sequence-number / 2: 0, / common / 3: << { / dependencies / 1: { / component-index / 1: { / dependency-prefix / 1: [ 'dependent.suit' ] } }, / components / 2: [ [ '10' ] ] } >>, / manifest-component-id / 5: [ 'depending.suit' ], / invoke / 9: << [ / directive-set-component-index / 12, 0, / directive-override-parameters / 20, { / parameter-invoke-args / 23: 'cat 00 10' }, / directive-invoke / 23, 15 ] >>, / dependency-resolution / 15: << [ / directive-set-component-index / 12, 1, / directive-override-parameters / 20, { / parameter-image-digest / 3: << [ / digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /, / digest-bytes: / h'6C86246B90D644F021671F6D42523B2CB5E156F764BE618AA46BFCD0DB23E768' ] >>, / parameter-image-size / 14: 352, / parameter-uri / 21: "#dependent.suit" }, / directive-fetch / 21, 2, / condition-image-match / 3, 15 ] >>, Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 33] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024 / install / 17: << [ / directive-set-component-index / 12, 1, / directive-process-dependency / 11, 0, / directive-set-component-index / 12, 0, / directive-override-parameters / 20, { / parameter-content / 18: ' in multiple trust domains' }, / directive-write / 18, 15 ] >> } >>, / NOTE: Example 0 / "#dependent.suit": h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}) Total size of Envelope with COSE authentication object: 683 Envelope with COSE authentication object: Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 34] Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March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uthors' Addresses Brendan Moran Arm Limited Email: brendan.moran.ietf@gmail.com Ken Takayama SECOM CO., LTD. Email: ken.takayama.ietf@gmail.com Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 35]