Re: [Lwip] [Suit] next steps in clarifying scoping terminology for SUIT, CoSWID, MUD and SBOM

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,

> On 2020-06-09, at 18:13, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> […] smartphones do not fit into RFC7228, and yet they are not "unconstrained"
> 
> We constrast SUIT to devices where the is potentially many packages that
> can be updated, up to and including the Linux/Windows desktop/server
> environment where there are potentially thousands of packages.
> 
> In RFC7228, we described a series of useful terms and classes, and we have
> repeatedly come back wishing to have some notions of "class 3+" to describe
> classes of more capable devices, up to and including "classic" desktop and
> server OS installations.
> 
> I think that as we move towards dealing with SBOM concepts (whether via
> CoSWID, or in liason to IoTSF and/or NTIA) that it would be useful if we
> worked on an rfc7228bis (or a companion document: nothing wrong with 7228 really),
> that allowed us to speak more intelligently about different classes of
> devices.

There is activity on a 7228 bis.

Would

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-lwig-7228bis-06#table-1

have helped you?

This has a number of experimental classes above 2; both in the M Group (microcontrollers) and the J Group (general purpose computers — pun only accessible to people who know how Jeeps got their name).

Note that Sections 3.1..3.3 have more experimental categories; not sure these are useful for what you are trying to do.

Grüße, Carsten