IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Suit] self-describing format vs fixed/binary manifest structure - pull parser

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Thu, 03 January 2019 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 4CD291311DE for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:41:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 NMW6LrNM1Dnp for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:41:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27B601311DD for <suit@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:41:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359753808A; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:40:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 8A9831A23; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:41:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A40A3A; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:41:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: "suit@ietf.org" <suit@ietf.org>, David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190103164408.GA956@davidb.org>
References: <DM5PR21MB06984CC3CF3075F362FB410A9DBF0@DM5PR21MB0698.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <20190103164408.GA956@davidb.org>
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: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 12:41:14 -0500
Message-ID: <6721.1546537274@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/kP_GfvwDRrw1mDOIRrDauAooSM8>
Subject: Re: [Suit] self-describing format vs fixed/binary manifest structure - pull parser
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: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 17:41:21 -0000

David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org> wrote:
    > I think most of the requirements for
    > restricted code size can be handled by merely restricting what
    > constitutes a valid manifest.

+1

    > Even with the most memory constrained devices in MCUboot, it has been
    > useful to be able to extend the format of its manifest (by adding new
    > tags) without having to disrupt a fixed structure.

Good to hear this.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email