Re: [Suit] SUIT rechartering: proposed text

I agree with Brendan, etc.
Maybe we should simply remove the paragraph and remain silent.

Dave

From: Suit <suit-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ira McDonald
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 9:30 AM
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Cc: suit <suit@ietf.org>; Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [Suit] SUIT rechartering: proposed text

Hi,

I suggest that SUIT indeed has potentially much wider utility
than just the initial firmware of an embedded device.

Without displacing other vendor and consortia based software
update solutions, I suggest that SUIT could be used to update
software modules (after initial firmware) in a target device.

Having spent the last two years as a US invited expert in the
ISO 24089 Road Vehicles: Software Update project and the
last eight years addressing OTA firmware/software update
for the automotive industry, I suggest that SUIT has quite a
few advantages over many of the other solutions that were
adapted from the mobile phone industry.

I believe that it would be unfortunate for the SUIT charter to
imply or explicitly say that it's not suitable for the automotive
industry.

Cheers,
- Ira

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 12:16 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca<mailto:mcr%2Bietf@sandelman.ca>> wrote:

Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com<mailto:Brendan.Moran@arm.com>> wrote:
    > I'm slightly concerned by one paragraph:

    >>> The SUIT WG does not aim to create a standard for a generic
    >>> application software update mechanism, but instead the SUIT WG is
    >>> focusing on firmware development practices in the embedded
    >>> industry. Software update solutions that target updating software
    >>> other than the firmware binaries (e.g., applications) are also out of
    >>> scope.

    > This is a concern because, in the manifest format, we say that the
    > primary goal is firmware update, but it's still usable for software
    > update. If this paragraph of the charter remains as-is, then the
    > manifest format appears to go counter to the charter. I would argue
    > that this paragraph appears to prohibit the development of support for
    > TEEP.

We weren't aiming for software update, but it turns out that we hit the mark.

The paragraph, as Russ says, is left over from before.
The important part about it is that if SUIT Manifest format was found lacking
in some way as a "generic application software update", that wouldn't be considered a bug.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca<mailto:mcr%2BIETF@sandelman.ca>>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

_______________________________________________
Suit mailing list
Suit@ietf.org<mailto:Suit@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsuit&data=04%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7Cf2c973072f7d459050b808d95c1c6604%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637642099315360855%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=INYmiKpX8DUroLOGBG9y9K2RMJc%2B%2Bk9hbWTQRqInFUA%3D&reserved=0>