Re: [Fud] Charter Text

"Thomas Eichinger" <thomas@riot-os.org> Thu, 10 August 2017 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas@riot-os.org>
X-Original-To: fud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42426132485 for <fud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RxNAERZTZIsv for <fud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.stillroot.org (mail.stillroot.org [176.9.132.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CAB1132484 for <fud@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.stillroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C777642985; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:36:38 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at ba.stillroot.org
Received: from mail.stillroot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.stillroot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MPJkVS2MS_Iu; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:36:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (unknown [IPv6:2602:306:36e3:3580:30a0:4032:2ca8:aab3]) by mail.stillroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80AD142981; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:36:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Thomas Eichinger" <thomas@riot-os.org>
To: "Hannes Tschofenig" <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, fud@ietf.org
Cc: "Emmanuel Baccelli" <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:36:27 -0700
Message-ID: <B519CC70-0BA9-472D-BA77-6ECFFE48EB43@riot-os.org>
In-Reply-To: <76330c36-4e99-3013-e6bf-61e9c627ba46@gmx.net>
References: <8f8528da-d1eb-08c7-b3fe-b1f4febed595@gmx.net> <CANK0pbbbgEONiCeuQGOuRO9Gq62RpAVhh53xLxd5JOMQtJg-_g@mail.gmail.com> <76330c36-4e99-3013-e6bf-61e9c627ba46@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6090)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/fud/hd07gtV2_pzpYbvcGLI-3wHFkac>
Subject: Re: [Fud] Charter Text
X-BeenThere: fud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: FUD - Firmware Updating Description <fud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fud>, <mailto:fud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/fud/>
List-Post: <mailto:fud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fud>, <mailto:fud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:36:40 -0000

Hi Hannes,

Thanks for the proposal! Please see comments below.

On 8 Aug 2017, at 3:29 PDT(-0700), Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> On 07/22/2017 09:57 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
>>
>> At high level, I have the following comments & suggestions:
>>
>> - we have the case of software updates, not only firmware updates, so
>> I'd rather we talk about the more general case of software updates. Is
>> there a strong reason against this?
>
>
> There are several reasons why I wanted to focus on firmware updates:
>
> (a) In ARM we have worked on firmware updates for M-class devices and
> A-class devices. The constraints, developer experience, business models,
> the involved parties, security concerns, etc. between these two classes
> of devices are different. We don't see a lot of guys running special
> versions of Java, JavaScript/JerryScript, etc. on M-class devices even
> though we have been experimenting with these ideas as well (see
> https://developer.mbed.org/javascript-on-mbed/). My personal opinion is
> that those are nice fun projects but not useful for anything serious.

Personally, from the charter text it is not clear what it considers part of
the firmware and what it doesn't.
The general definition of firmware is very blurry with different meanings
for many people. So applications running in an OS or on top of a driver
library are not necessarily considered firmware although maybe part of the
same resulting monolithic binary image.

Best, Thomas

ps.: There is a reference of RFC4018 which is probably unintended.