Re: [Suit] SUIT rechartering: proposed text

Okay, I dropped that paragraph.

Any other comments from anyone?

Russ

> On Aug 10, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Brendan, etc.
> Maybe we should simply remove the paragraph and remain silent.
>  
> Dave
>  
> From: Suit <suit-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:suit-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Ira McDonald
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 9:30 AM
> To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca <mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>>; Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com <mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com>>
> Cc: suit <suit@ietf.org <mailto:suit@ietf.org>>; Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com <mailto: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>_______________________________________________
> Suit mailing list
> Suit@ietf.org <mailto:Suit@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit>