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

Carsten Bormann <> Tue, 09 June 2020 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4040E3A0D0B; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id snBRB-VBlsoa; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D75163A0D09; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49hKNG0vjBzyNT; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 21:06:21 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <22789.1591719213@localhost>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 21:06:21 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 613422381.026311-eb8d20bec41f1b23ddbead370ca7b1b9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <22789.1591719213@localhost>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Suit] next steps in clarifying scoping terminology for SUIT, CoSWID, MUD and SBOM
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Software Updates for Internet of Things <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 19:06:29 -0000

Hi Michael,

> On 2020-06-09, at 18:13, Michael Richardson <> 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.


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