IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Suit] SUIT rechartering: proposed text

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 10 August 2021 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307E23A1322 for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 09:15:04 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 MOzvFFxeG0tP for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 09:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 378233A12CD for <suit@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 09:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFE8389C1; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:19:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id zIXjVqWrJKKa; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:19:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B998C389BB; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:19:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5912622; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:14:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com>, suit <suit@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <A460F3FC-0EC6-4B8F-9D8C-D40AC841E602@arm.com>
References: <66D84CE5-22E6-44F0-8239-8A5832326219@arm.com> <3E7D5E5B-03EE-4EDD-A951-FB119F72DDE8@arm.com> <16339.1613515194@localhost> <E4B87013-1498-463F-98C0-5FF13344C3EA@arm.com> <6FC3F38A-B067-4180-ACD9-A121162EA459@vigilsec.com> <26718.1626138395@localhost> <MN2PR09MB4841BA0A0CC978E70A09A509F0119@MN2PR09MB4841.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <67F117E7-28F2-45F3-BC4C-AC8116BCB69F@vigilsec.com> <SN6PR2101MB0943178F1E627E78A1343AE8A3E59@SN6PR2101MB0943.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <50B65F80-808D-4591-9D4D-2346796DA204@vigilsec.com> <1944E3C3-9348-4574-AE26-4133BFD932B0@vigilsec.com> <CH2PR21MB1464AC4D50A932EC45A3B369A3EF9@CH2PR21MB1464.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <3944F4E6-9644-4D23-9DB0-B0AC0490AB51@vigilsec.com> <A460F3FC-0EC6-4B8F-9D8C-D40AC841E602@arm.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:14:47 -0400
Message-ID: <20192.1628612087@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/cVXyDB8xvgvgOPHnEdpxUR8GzCE>
Subject: Re: [Suit] SUIT rechartering: proposed text
X-BeenThere: suit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Software Updates for Internet of Things <suit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/suit/>
List-Post: <mailto:suit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:15:09 -0000

Brendan Moran <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>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email