Hi François-Frédéric, Like you, I'm particularly keen to connect the dots between environmental sustainability and open source software.
I love your levels, basically recognizing that if the firmware is not updatable or maintained anymore, or if it can't fulfill its function by running TAs, the whole system might be rendered obsolete. There are two other interesting dimensions I would propose to consider: - resource requirements of the firmware and payloads such as TAs – the firmware/system is rendered obsolete because resources available for the firmware are insufficient, e.g. TAs or binaries grow in size or number or runtime requirements to the point that the device can't function - architectural requirements – the firmware or its payloads start requiring recent hardware features or a newer API; this is likely going to bring some tradeoffs in security as the bar keeps getting higher; this could connect to your level 2 I'd love to help draft language or with recommendations around this! Best, - Loïc Minier On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 10:12, François Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi > > even though I am not an "ecology activist", sustainability is a topic dear > to me. And it can translate into firmware world... So I am targeting this > message to the audience of the two firmware communities I know and hope it > is okay to do so. > > March 2021 was a big date for Open Source Firmware > <https://www.opencompute.org/projects/open-system-firmware>: that was the > deadline to get > > " > Owners must be able to change firmware and share it -- including any binary > components -- with other owners. Starting in March, 2021, OCP badging for > servers will require that systems support OSF. > " > > That's a big step towards sustainability in the OCP world. > > More generally, we should have the capacity to characterize firmware > sustainability for post official firmware End Of Life. > > What about the following : > > level 0: system cannot evolve or be updated. > > level 1: the system can be updated to a bootable minimal functionality with > open community effort.It may lack some features. For instance, you can > still look at your TV but lose Netflix 4K because the owners (in OCP sense) > cannot get a signed Netflix TA (either updated or not). > > level 2: the TAs and other binaries can be made available (signed) to the > ones maintaining open source firmware projects (TF-A, OP-TEE, U-Boot...). > For instance, owners (in the OCP sense) can get the updated Netflix TA > binary (updated or not) and sign it for inclusion. > > level 3: all firmware components are open source and can thus be community > maintained. > > I think : > Level 2 is the right balance between business value and "ecological" goal > of sustainability. > Level 3 is not mandatory and not the ultimate goal. > > Is this a good way to characterize sustainability? > How to make at least level 2 happen ? > > Cheers > > FF > -- > François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* > T: +33.67221.6485 > francois.o...@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog > _______________________________________________ > boot-architecture mailing list > boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture > -- Loïc Minier _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
