Hi Michael, > On 2020-06-09, at 18:13, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > […] smartphones do not fit into RFC7228, and yet they are not "unconstrained" > > We constrast SUIT to devices where the is potentially many packages that > can be updated, up to and including the Linux/Windows desktop/server > environment where there are potentially thousands of packages. > > In RFC7228, we described a series of useful terms and classes, and we have > repeatedly come back wishing to have some notions of "class 3+" to describe > classes of more capable devices, up to and including "classic" desktop and > server OS installations. > > I think that as we move towards dealing with SBOM concepts (whether via > CoSWID, or in liason to IoTSF and/or NTIA) that it would be useful if we > worked on an rfc7228bis (or a companion document: nothing wrong with 7228 > really), > that allowed us to speak more intelligently about different classes of > devices.
There is activity on a 7228 bis. Would https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-lwig-7228bis-06#table-1 have helped you? This has a number of experimental classes above 2; both in the M Group (microcontrollers) and the J Group (general purpose computers — pun only accessible to people who know how Jeeps got their name). Note that Sections 3.1..3.3 have more experimental categories; not sure these are useful for what you are trying to do. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
