[question] Why firmware object is single instance? about lwm2m-registry HOT 2 CLOSED

The Firmware Update Object should be seen as a delivery mechanism. We agree that having multiple instances of this Object would be nice. This was overlooked when creating the Object for LwM2M 1.0. For your particular use case, the package could contain indication on the recipient of the update. Please have a look at the SUIT manifest https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-suit-manifest/.

from lwm2m-registry.

Hi @hannestschofenig and thank you for your answer.

It is true that delivered package could contain metadata required to identify which target it is meant for. However, in my opinion, this feels a bit hacky for two reasons. Firstly, the firmware object exposes version string, but if you can deliver multiple images, which version this is, or should it be a combined string of all version numbers? Secondly, usually manufacturer or the update software already dictates the binary format, and might already contain verification of correct image. Feels unnecessary to pack signed image to another package which then should be processed and unpacked on limited resource device. Sometimes the components that we could update, have nothing in common. For example MCUboot could be used for application image, so it dictates which verification and signing is used for application. Then modem manufacturer have their own binary format and own signing mechanism, which it verifies.

For those two reasons, I would strongly prefer the simplicity of firmware object allowing me to transfer binaries in native format and if multiple instances would be allowed I could expose versions of each components as well.

I'm sorry I'm not aware of correct process, but what would it take to propose a change that Firmware Update object would be marked as multiple instance? Am I right on assuming that object definitions can be updated without touching the LwM2M specification?

from lwm2m-registry.