Subject: [Fud] Firmware updates and CoAP

From: Alexander Pelov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 22:59:08 +0100

Dear all,

This is indeed a very interesting work and I would be looking forward to learn more about the gaps you think should be addressed in the first place.

Do you think the focus of the future work should be exclusively on updates via CoAP, should it include more generic approach (RESTful or not), or do you think there should be separate tracks of work? There are already some works on CoAP multicast, but maybe this work would need to be adjusted for firmware updates?

Best,
Alexander

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:33:38 +0100

Hi Alexander,

Good questions and here is how I see the story.

For an interoperable firmware update solution you need the following
building blocks:

 a) A transport mechanism to get the firmware images from a repository
to the clients. While this sounds trivial it is actually quite complex
since you often need to know exactly what device you are dealing with to
provide it with the appropriate image. Hence, this is a bit different to
the way how software is updated on Linux-based systems with their
package manager.

 b) You need a security wrapper that protects the actual firmware image.

 (c) Finally, you need information about the firmware image itself. Call
it meta-data.

We are using LwM2M, i.e., a CoAP-based RESTful API protocol for (a), for
(b) you could use something like RFC 4108 (or similar). For (c) we have
a bit of meta-data defined in the LwM2M spec and there is some info also
defined in RFC 4108.

We are suggesting to revisit RFC 4108 (b) and define additional
meta-data (c).

Does this make sense?

Ciao
Hannes

On 02/09/2017 10:59 PM, Alexander Pelov wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Fud mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fud
>