search

uptane / uptane-standard

standard for Uptane
https://uptane.github.io
Other
37 stars 31 forks source link

Standard Inconsistency #175

Closed allen-cain-tm closed 4 years ago

allen-cain-tm commented 4 years ago

Section 5.4.2.5 allows for a Secondary to not receive the latest attested time due to not [having] the capacity to verify a time message. Yet, Section 5.4.3 & Section 5.4.3.1 requires all ECUs to verify the latest attested time.

Proposal: Update Sections 5.4.3 & 5.4.3.1 to optional for ECUs which do not have the capacity to verify a time message.

iramcdonald commented 4 years ago

Hi,

I agree - this is an outright bug in the current Standard!

We should not defer this consistency fix to v2.0.0.

Cheers,

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG

Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG

Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthincmailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com blueroofmusic@gmail.com(permanent) PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 3:22 PM allen-cain notifications@github.com wrote:

Section 5.4.2.5 allows for a Secondary to not receive the latest attested time due to not [having] the capacity to verify a time message. Yet, Section 5.4.3 & Section 5.4.3.1 requires all ECUs to verify the latest attested time.

Proposal: Update Sections 5.4.3 & 5.4.3.1 to optional for ECUs which do not have the capacity to verify a time message.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/uptane/uptane-standard/issues/175, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE33UO6BJP4PAWV6HPOVOKLR54QOTANCNFSM4PK24T2A .

jhdalek55 commented 4 years ago

Can someone suggest the appropriate wording for a PR here? It seems like it should be a simple issue to address, though we probably will need to review the document to make sure this inconsistency doesn't exist elsewhere.

jhdalek55 commented 4 years ago

Added wording on 9/13 that should address this issue.

jhdalek55 commented 4 years ago

Can someone with the correct privileges close this issue. We addressed the concern. This was the only open issue still flagged for 1.1.0 so I would like to keep the record straight.

pattivacek commented 4 years ago

Fixed by https://github.com/uptane/uptane-standard/pull/180.