SPDM Daemon status & Collaboration

[Zhichuang Sun]

Hi Patrick

Thanks for sharing the guidelines. We are happy to work with the community
to upstream our spdmd to OpenBMC.

What’s the process to create an spdmd repo within OpenBMC?

Thanks,
Zhichuang

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 3:34 PM Patrick Williams <patrick at stwcx.xyz> wrote:

> [image: docs.png]
>
> docs/meta-layer-guidelines.md at e6185cf8d2d0d8f045043efa2700adbba99abda6
> · openbmc/docs
> <https://github.com/openbmc/docs/blob/e6185cf8d2d0d8f045043efa2700adbba99abda6/meta-layer-guidelines.md#meta-layers-should-not-point-to-openbmc-specific-repositories-outside-of>
> github.com
> <https://github.com/openbmc/docs/blob/e6185cf8d2d0d8f045043efa2700adbba99abda6/meta-layer-guidelines.md#meta-layers-should-not-point-to-openbmc-specific-repositories-outside-of>
>
> <https://github.com/openbmc/docs/blob/e6185cf8d2d0d8f045043efa2700adbba99abda6/meta-layer-guidelines.md#meta-layers-should-not-point-to-openbmc-specific-repositories-outside-of>
>
> Having openbmc-specific code in a google-owned repository isn’t “upstream”
> and it is not acceptable to have a recipe pointing to it.  If you want to
> collaborate with the rest of the community, we need to follow community
> practices for the development.
>
> — Patrick Williams
>
> On Feb 26, 2025, at 12:59 PM, Zhichuang Sun <zhichuang at google.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Hi Manoj,
>
> We have already upstreamed our spdmd to https://github.com/google/spdmd.
> We are looking forward to adding recipe files into openbmc so that it can
> be tested with it.
>
> Thank you,
> Zhichuang
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 4:41 AM Manojkiran Eda <manojkiran.eda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Zhichuang,
>>
>> I hope you are doing well.
>>
>> I noticed that the SPDM daemon design document where you were the
>> primary contributor was merged around Feb 2023 [1]; however, I have not
>> seen any corresponding repository creation or code contributions since
>> then. At IBM, we are keen on leveraging the recently released SPDM over
>> TCP specification from DMTF [2] and extending the existing design to
>> support attestation over TCP [3].
>>
>> I wanted to check whether you are still interested in up-streaming the
>> implementation. If so, I would be delighted to collaborate and
>> contribute the necessary enhancements to accommodate TCP-based use
>> cases. If you don’t intend to upstream, I am happy to
>> contribute/maintain code & develop a solution that ensures the stack is
>> architected to seamlessly scale for both TCP and MCTP transport
>> mechanisms.
>>
>> I look forward to your thoughts and the opportunity to collaborate.
>>
>>
>> **References:**
>> 1.
>>
>> https://github.com/openbmc/docs/blob/master/designs/redfish-spdm-attestation.md
>>
>> 2. https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/docs/+/78257
>> 3.
>>
>> https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP0287_1.0.0.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Manoj
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20250306/b5e24e07/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: docs.png
Type: image/png
Size: 69691 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20250306/b5e24e07/attachment-0001.png>