Re: [Suit] Introducing draft-moran-suit-behavioural-manifests-00

Michael Richardson <> Sat, 20 April 2019 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B991201BC for <>; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ryPKCtMYkifX for <>; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 12:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C5B41201A5 for <>; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 12:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B511838263 for <>; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 15:37:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id D4FFB1861; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 15:37:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D292EDE2 for <>; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 15:37:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: "suit\" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 15:37:15 -0400
Message-ID: <8284.1555789035@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Suit] Introducing draft-moran-suit-behavioural-manifests-00
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 19:37:21 -0000

I've been through the document and I've read the thread, and I watched the
IETF104 video (I had a conflict).   I have a number of concerns.

I find some of the conversation about the details of the operations
indicative that coming to agreement for an proceedural mechanism may be
rather difficult to get consensus on; but I could be wrong here.

I feel that this proposal brings us away from a declarative manifest that can
be reasoned about without regard to time.  I'm not exactly sure I understand
the rational for the flexibility that is presented.
It could be that I just don't understand this well enough; I tend to
understand things by writing code, and I haven't written any code around

Is there an example (maybe in the draft that I mis-understood) that would
provide a pair of use cases where being able to do things in different
orders, *at the control of the firmware update author* would make sense?
If product A always needs to do action-1 before action-2, and product B
always needs to do action-2 before action-1, I see no value in a behaviour
It's when product A sometimes should do action-1 before action-2, and
sometimes action-2 before action-1 that the behaviour makes sense.

Again, maybe I just don't understand the proposal.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-