Hi,
I suggest we move the discussion to
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
I am sending the subscription link to BKK19 boot sprint attendees.
Cheers
FF
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 10:31, Francois Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org>
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 10:23, AKASHI, Takahiro <takahiro.akashi(a)linaro.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 16:49, Joakim Bech <joakim.bech(a)linaro.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > @Takahiro, thanks for teaching me what is right and wrong :)
>>
>> No, no. Everything is right, but some are only suitable for a specific
>> relationship :)
>>
>> > @Ilias, @FF, replies inline below.
>> >
>> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 09:22, Francois Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 08:51, Ilias Apalodimas <
>> ilias.apalodimas(a)linaro.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Akashi-san,
>> >>>
>> >>> > > I'm just drafting a new card for running the Standalone MM
>> >>> > > as Trusted Application in OP-TEE. The use case as I understand
>> >>> > > it is to call this TA from U-Boot environment (and when Linux is
>> >>> > > up and running).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I heard the almost same thing from Francois.
>> >>> > I don't mind how the service will be implemented in secure world.
>> What I'd
>> >>> > like to do here is to add an interface for communicating with
>> secure world
>> >>> > on U-Boot side (normal world).
>> >>> Can we try and avoid double and triple Jira epics, while still giving
>> credit to
>> >>> SIGs/Groups doing the work?
>> >>> We already have an initiative up for u-boot relasted issues.
>> >>> https://projects.linaro.org/browse/LEDGE-134
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> My proposal is that EPICS related to OPTEE are owned by SWG, even if
>> they are resourced by LEDGE.
>> >> For instance, I can task a LEDGE assignee to do the OPTEE work under
>> Joakim guidance and reporting on a SWG EPIC.
>> >
>> > This is inline with my thoughts.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> LEDGE Initiative would include an EPIC link to the SWG EPIC: LEDGE can
>> then track the many tasks done in KWG and SWG.
>> >> Actually I proposed the creation of a lead project: dependable boot.
>> >>
>> >> For the time being, lets create all the Jira cards we think we need to
>> address. Lets check each other iniatives to ensure we have identified all
>> pieces of work.
>> >> https://projects.linaro.org/browse/LEDGE-151
>> >> https://projects.linaro.org/browse/LEDGE-134
>> >
>> > As we're speaking I'm drafting the work for a Standalone MM OP-TEE as
>> well as the fTPM stuff:
>> > https://projects.linaro.org/browse/SWG-372 (I'm going to add more
>> details here after having a chat with Ard ... who is travelling to US for
>> the moment).
>> > https://projects.linaro.org/browse/SWG-373
>> >
>> > Note that I'll more and more start creating Initiatives instead of
>> Epics, since I believe the consensus after TSC voting is that our current
>> Initiatives are too broad containing unrelated features. Having that said,
>> beneath the Initiatives I'll split up sub-tasks as Epics.
>>
>> Let me make clear; I started my UEFI-related tasks almost
>> independently from other groups' activities. In this sense, my
>> 'initiative' is KWG-339 (I don't care much though). KWG-403 is
>> a card where I want to keep my status updated.
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Yes, I remember that we discussed lots about running Standalone MM
>> as
>> >>> > OP-TEE application, and what I'm asking is
>> >>> > - do you have any chance to use Standalone MM service on SPM, or
>> >>> > - do you want to use it solely as OP-TEE application.
>> >>> For the moment all LEDGE platforms we know of are based on u-boot.
>> >>> The only platform we have that not u-boot based is the SynQuacer box,
>> but Ard
>> >>> has already finished his StandaloneMM in SPM on that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> SPM does not work with ST32MP1 which is a LEDGE 32 bit target platform
>> and, AFAIK, will not work with virtualization in trustzone.
>> >> So SPD is our way to go.
>> >
>> > Yes, and IIRC, this is why we need to make Ard's current Standalone MM
>> implementation possible to run as an OP-TEE Trusted Application (basically
>> SWG-372). It's even useful on Armv8 devices until we have support for
>> running multiple SP's.
>>
>> So even for some sort of prototyping or POC, you won't use Standalone
>> MM services
>> in the current form and will be willing to wait for the completion of
>> SWG-372?
>>
>> I think we can swap very easily the protocol used between u-boot and the
> Standalone MM. You can surely do a first iteration with SPM version as it
> exists today and you can just add the u-boot part.
> This allows working in parrallel on different aspects of the
> implementation.
> We will focus on the SPD part.
>
> I heard from Ard that some assignee has finished porting Standalone MM
>> services
>> to qemu, and so I will be able to work on it integrating it into my
>> current secure boot patch.
>>
>>
> Sounds perfect!
>
>
>> In addition, in my previous e-mail, I think that I raised some topic
>> that we should
>> discuss, image authentication as well as rolls of secure world and
>> non-secure world.
>> This will have impacts on my secure boot patch; in some scenario, my
>> current work will
>> make almost no sense.
>>
>> That needs proper discussion:
> shall we use the boot-arch mail alias as the mailing list so that we reach
> a broad community for comments?
> shall we setup a weekly call ? (most attendees are europe to asia time
> zones I believe)
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> -Takahiro Akashi
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>> /Ilias
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Joakim
>>
>
>
> --
> [image: Linaro]
> <https://www.linaro.org/assets/content/RGB-Linaro_Standard.png>
> François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group*
> T: +33.67221.6485
> francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
>
>
--
[image: Linaro]
<https://www.linaro.org/assets/content/RGB-Linaro_Standard.png>
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
# My apology if this kind of discussion is not appropriate in this ML.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 04:20:48PM +0100, Yang Zhang wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 16:18, Udit Kumar <udit.kumar(a)nxp.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for information AKASHI
> >
> > IMO for EBBR, we need to define subset of test-cases, which are required
> > in EBBR specs.
> >
>
> +1
Since I have been away from SCT long time, I almost forgot details
of how SCT runs but at the first glance, it would be quite simple and
straightforward as SCT already has a feature to run only a specific list
of test cases (through TestCase.ini file).
* create a list of test cases (TestCase.ini is automatically generated
by SCT if we want to run all.)
* check/mark only interested cases
(There are always two types of tests: conformance and function.)
* run SCT with this list
The issue would be who maintain this list and where :) and
I don't know that the 'granularity' of each test case would
fit well for our subset.
>
> > I expect some fail in u-boot.
> > Also need to find a better way to build uefi-sct
> >
> > +1
I used pre-built binary of SCT.
-Takahiro Akashi
>
>
> > Regards
> > Udit
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi(a)linaro.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 10:53 AM
> > > To: Grant Likely <Grant.Likely(a)arm.com>
> > > Cc: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar(a)nxp.com>; Dong Wei <Dong.Wei(a)arm.com>; Eric
> > > FINCO <eric.finco(a)st.com>; Robert Oshana <robert.oshana(a)nxp.com>; Tony
> > > Wu <tonywu(a)realtek.com>; boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-
> > > discuss <arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com>; LEDGE SC <ledge-sc(a)linaro.org>;
> > Varis,
> > > Pekka <p-varis(a)ti.com>; nd <nd(a)arm.com>
> > > Subject: [EXT] Re: EBBR SC meeting on-site at Connect
> > >
> > > WARNING: This email was created outside of NXP. DO NOT CLICK links or
> > > attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 07:42:46PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > Hi Udit,
> > > >
> > > > We talked about testing. We generally agreed that UEFI-SCT is
> > > > important, even though it is limited. LuvOS (which includes UEFI-SCT)
> > > > is a good candidate to do more complete testing, and we also talked
> > > > about getting UEFI test cases into the U-Boot CI testing.
> > >
> > > Just FYI, it was last July that I ran UEFI SCT with U-Boot on qemu.
> > > Here is a summary of the result:
> > >
> > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goo
> > > gle.com%2Fspreadsheets%2Fd%2F17e45yojM2nLdRovx0gcgHIAmvv9b_yc9iIUjZ
> > > 2LY22c%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7Cudit.kumar%40nxp.
> > > com%7Cc5b24ae4bd26466e1a7008d6bcab1c5c%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99
> > > c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636903840436702643&sdata=00NOqcpsKPi8DkJ
> > > u8y%2F7mLqSI8qQGFSGqzBhbpo3bbE%3D&reserved=0
> > > (Please note that this is not for public review, but just informative.)
> > >
> > > In my experience, I saw lots of failure cases (some or most of them are
> > trivial
> > > and can be duplicated ones though), and running through all the test
> > cases took
> > > a whole week. This is partly because SCT crashes occasionally and I
> > needed to
> > > restart it next morning :)
> > >
> > > So I'm not sure that U-Boot UEFI is ready for automated testing with SCT.
> > > (We made lots of improvements recently, but I have had no time to re-run
> > SCT
> > > these days. Give me a fast machine :)
> > >
> > > -Takahiro Akashi
> > >
> > > > Linaro LEDGE is looking at adding U-Boot testing to their backlog, but
> > > > they don't have any engineering resources who can be assigned to the
> > > > work right now. I'm also going to try and resource this from Arm.
> > > >
> > > > g.
> > > >
> > > > On 04/04/2019 16:08, Udit Kumar wrote:
> > > > > Hi Grant
> > > > >
> > > > >>>- other business
> > > > >
> > > > > See, if you can add compliance test suits for EBBR, or subset of
> > > > > UEFI-SCT is enough ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Udit
> > > > >
> > > > > *From:* arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces(a)arm.com
> > > > > <arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces(a)arm.com> *On Behalf Of *Grant Likely
> > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2019 12:49 PM
> > > > > *To:* Dong Wei <Dong.Wei(a)arm.com>; Eric FINCO <eric.finco(a)st.com>;
> > > > > Robert Oshana <robert.oshana(a)nxp.com>; Tony Wu
> > > <tonywu(a)realtek.com>;
> > > > > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-discuss
> > > > > <arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com>; LEDGE SC <ledge-sc(a)linaro.org>; Varis,
> > > > > Pekka <p-varis(a)ti.com>
> > > > > *Subject:* Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] EBBR SC meeting on-site at Connect
> > > > >
> > > > > Agenda for today:
> > > > >
> > > > > - EBBR v1.0 released (yay!)
> > > > >
> > > > > - goals for v1.1 or v2.0
> > > > >
> > > > > - other issues
> > > > >
> > > > > - secure world interfaces
> > > > >
> > > > > - non-block storage
> > > > >
> > > > > - identification of protected blocks
> > > > >
> > > > > - other business
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Grant Likely
> > > > >
> > > > > Sr. Technical Director SW Engineering
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----
> > > > >
> > > > > *From:*Grant Likely
> > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:49:23 PM
> > > > > *To:* Dong Wei; Eric FINCO; robert.oshana(a)nxp.com; Tony Wu;
> > > > > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-discuss; LEDGE SC;
> > > > > Varis, Pekka
> > > > > *Subject:* Re: EBBR SC meeting on-site at Connect
> > > > >
> > > > > details for those who had trouble with the calendar invite:
> > > > >
> > > > > Room: Lotus 5-6
> > > > >
> > > > > Time: 5:00pm
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for those of you who aren’t here. I’m not going to have a dial
> > > > > in, but I’ll take good notes.
> > > > >
> > > > > g.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > boot-architecture mailing list
> > > > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org
> > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> > > > s.linaro.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fboot-
> > > architecture&data=02%7C01
> > > >
> > > %7Cudit.kumar%40nxp.com%7Cc5b24ae4bd26466e1a7008d6bcab1c5c%7C686
> > > ea1d3b
> > > >
> > > c2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636903840436702643&sdata=F
> > > Rd8%2B
> > > > nzRF827ZMG1fYeDwEr90V%2BZHvIHbFiIPAhBFiQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list
> > Arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com
details for those who had trouble with the calendar invite:
Room: Lotus 5-6
Time: 5:00pm
Sorry for those of you who aren’t here. I’m not going to have a dial in, but I’ll take good notes.
g.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
FYI: EDK2 development mailing list changing to devel(a)edk2.groups.io
This will give us some better flexibility with regards to whitelisting
non-subscribers and suchlike currently not possible through 01.org.
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:59:31AM -0500, stephano wrote:
> tl;dr
> If you're sending emails to this list, now would be a good time to switch
> over to the new list: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel
>
>
> We will be transitioning to Groups.io today for our devel mailing list. At
> some point today, this email will begin to bounce any incoming messages.
> I'll be working on getting the archive of old emails uploaded to Groups.io.
> When I have a timetable for the archives I'll update the new list.
>
> Cheers,
> Stephano
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel(a)lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
[Updated with new room]
Hi all,
For those of you at Linaro Connect, I’ve scheduled an EBBR Face to Face on Wednesday. I’ll email around an agenda tomorrow. Email me if you’ve got anything specific you’d like to discuss.
For those of you who aren’t here, I’ll try to provide a remote dial-in but I’m not hopeful that it will work. I will make sure good notes are taken, and we’ll do a summary on the next regular conference call.
Cheers,
g.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Hi all,
For those of you at Linaro Connect, I’ve scheduled an EBBR Face to Face on Wednesday. I’ll email around an agenda tomorrow. Email me if you’ve got anything specific you’d like to discuss.
For those of you who aren’t here, I’ll try to provide a remote dial-in but I’m not hopeful that it will work. I will make sure good notes are taken, and we’ll do a summary on the next regular conference call.
Cheers,
g.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Hi all,
For those of you at Linaro Connect, I’ve scheduled an EBBR Face to Face on Wednesday. I’ll email around an agenda tomorrow. Email me if you’ve got anything specific you’d like to discuss.
For those of you who aren’t here, I’ll try to provide a remote dial-in but I’m not hopeful that it will work. I will make sure good notes are taken, and we’ll do a summary on the next regular conference call.
Cheers,
g.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Hi all,
Last week I tagged v1.0-rc1 of EBBR. The release .pdf can be found here:
https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/releases
It should represent the content we've discussed in the regular meetings
for a baseline v1.0 EBBR. Please review and comment. If there are no
major objections I intend to release v1.0 final on Friday this week
ahead of Linaro Connect.
g.
Hi all,
Yesterday I tagged EBBR v0.8 in the git repo and published a new pdf.
Please go review and comment.
https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/releases/tag/v0.8
We're nearing the end of the v1.0 process. I would like to tag a v1.0
release before the end of March. Feedback comments from v0.6 and v0.7
have been incorporated. Presuming no major objections, I will tag a
v1.0-rc1 on Monday 18 March 2019, to be followed by a final v1.0 on
Friday 29 March,
There is one more outstanding change that didn't make it into v0.8, but
will be in the next release. The UEFI requirements appendix has been
removed as it merely duplicates requirements already listed in the UEFI
specification.
Thanks,
g.
Nothing in the UEFI Requirements appendix is valuable.
The table of required boot services is unnecessary because it is an
exact duplicate of the UEFI boot services list in the UEFI spec (and it
also happens to be slightly incorrect) (UEFI 2.6.1). It is providing no
value to include in EBBR as all UEFI implementations are required to
implement the full set.
The tables of required core protocols are already specified in the UEFI
spec (UEFI 2.6.1)
The table of required media i/o protocols are already required if the
device supports booting from a disk device (UEFI 2.6.2).
The table of console protocols is similarly already required if a
console device is present.
It isn't clear that HII protocols need to be required. U-Boot does
implement them, but it doesn't appear to be a critical requirement on
whether or not an OSV can support the platform.
The tables of optional UEFI protocols isn't adding any value because it
doesn't require anything of implementers, and it doesn't provide any
commentary on when the protocols should be included. This is just
additional text.
Remove the lot to simplify the spec.
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com>
---
source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst | 203 ------------------------------------
source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 4 -
source/index.rst | 1 -
3 files changed, 208 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst
diff --git a/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst b/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst
deleted file mode 100644
index bb74ca5..0000000
--- a/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,203 +0,0 @@
-.. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
-.. _appendix-uefi-requirements:
-
-#############################################
-APPENDIX A - UEFI Implementation Requirements
-#############################################
-
-Required Boot Services
-**********************
-
-========================================== ======
-Service UEFI §
-========================================== ======
-EFI_RAISE_TPL 7.1
-EFI_RESTORE_TPL 7.1
-EFI_ALLOCATE_PAGES 7.2
-EFI_FREE_PAGES 7.2
-EFI_GET_MEMORY_MAP 7.2
-EFI_ALLOCATE_POOL 7.2
-EFI_FREE_POOL 7.2
-EFI_CREATE_EVENT 7.1
-EFI_SET_TIMER 7.1
-EFI_WAIT_FOR_EVENT 7.1
-EFI_SIGNAL_EVENT 7.1
-EFI_CLOSE_EVENT 7.1
-EFI_INSTALL_PROTOCOL_INTERFACE 7.3
-EFI_REINSTALL_PROTOCOL_INTERFACE 7.3
-EFI_UNINSTALL_PROTOCOL_INTERFACE 7.3
-EFI_HANDLE_PROTOCOL 7.3
-EFI_REGISTER_PROTOCOL_NOTIFY 7.3
-EFI_LOCATE_HANDLE 7.3
-EFI_LOCATE_PROTOCOL 7.3
-EFI_LOCATE_DEVICE_PATH 7.3
-EFI_INSTALL_CONFIGURATION_TABLE 7.3
-EFI_IMAGE_LOAD 7.4
-EFI_IMAGE_START 7.4
-EFI_EXIT 7.4
-EFI_IMAGE_UNLOAD 7.4
-EFI_EXIT_BOOT_SERVICES 7.4
-EFI_GET_NEXT_MONOTONIC_COUNT 7.5
-EFI_STALL 7.5
-EFI_SET_WATCHDOG_TIMER 7.5
-EFI_CONNECT_CONTROLLER 7.3
-EFI_DISCONNECT_CONTROLLER 7.3
-EFI_OPEN_PROTOCOL 7.3
-EFI_CLOSE_PROTOCOL 7.3
-EFI_OPEN_PROTOCOL_INFORMATION 7.3
-EFI_PROTOCOLS_PER_HANDLE 7.3
-EFI_LOCATE_HANDLE_BUFFER 7.3
-EFI_LOCATE_PROTOCOL 7.3
-EFI_INSTALL_MULTIPLE_PROTOCOL_INTERFACES 7.3
-EFI_UNINSTALL_MULTIPLE_PROTOCOL_INTERFACES 7.3
-EFI_CALCULATE_CRC32 7.5
-EFI_COPY_MEM 7.5
-EFI_SET_MEM 7.5
-EFI_CREATE_EVENT_EX 7.5
-========================================== ======
-
-Required UEFI Protocols
-***********************
-
-Core UEFI Protocols
-===================
-
-========================================== ======
-Service UEFI §
-========================================== ======
-EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_PROTOCOL 9.1
-EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_DEVICE_PATH_PROTOCOL 9.2
-EFI_DECOMPRESS_PROTOCOL 19.5
-EFI_DEVICE_PATH_PROTOCOL 10.2
-EFI_DEVICE_PATH_UTILITIES_PROTOCOL 10.3
-========================================== ======
-
-Media I/O Protocols
-===================
-
-========================================== ======
-Service UEFI §
-========================================== ======
-EFI_LOAD_FILE2_PROTOCOL 13.2
-EFI_SIMPLE_FILE_SYSTEM_PROTOCOL 13.4
-EFI_FILE_PROTOCOL 13.5
-========================================== ======
-
-Console Protocols
-=================
-
-========================================== ======
-Service UEFI §
-========================================== ======
-EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_INPUT_PROTOCOL 12.2
-EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_INPUT_EX_PROTOCOL 12.3
-EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_OUTPUT_PROTOCOL 12.4
-========================================== ======
-
-Driver Configuration Protocols
-==============================
-
-========================================== ======
-Service UEFI §
-========================================== ======
-EFI_HII_DATABASE_PROTOCOL 33.4
-EFI_HII_STRING_PROTOCOL 33.4
-EFI_HII_CONFIG_ROUTING_PROTOCOL 33.4
-EFI_HII_CONFIG_ACCESS_PROTOCOL 33.4
-========================================== ======
-
-Optional UEFI Protocols
-***********************
-
-Basic Networking Support
-========================
-
-============================================ ======
-Service UEFI §
-============================================ ======
-EFI_SIMPLE_NETWORK_PROTOCOL 24.1
-EFI_MANAGED_NETWORK_PROTOCOL 25.1
-EFI_MANAGED_NETWORK_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 25.1
-============================================ ======
-
-.. note:: Networking services are optional on platforms that do not support
- networking.
-
-Network Boot Protocols
-======================
-
-========================================== ======
-Service UEFI §
-========================================== ======
-EFI_PXE_BASE_CODE_PROTOCOL 24.3
-EFI_PXE_BASE_CODE_CALLBACK_PROTOCOL 24.4
-EFI_BIS_PROTOCOL 24.5
-EFI_MTFTP4_PROTOCOL 30.3
-EFI_MTFTP6_PROTOCOL 30.4
-========================================== ======
-
-.. note:: EFI_BIS_PROTOCOL is optional on machines that do not support Secure
- Boot.
-
-IPV4 Network Support
-====================
-
-========================================== ======
-Service UEFI §
-========================================== ======
-EFI_ARP_PROTOCOL 29.1
-EFI_ARP_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 29.1
-EFI_DHCP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 29.2
-EFI_DHCP4_PROTOCOL 29.2
-EFI_TCP4_PROTOCOL 28.1.2
-EFI_TCP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.1.1
-EFI_IP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.3.1
-EFI_IP4_CONFIG2_PROTOCOL 28.5
-EFI_UDP4_PROTOCOL 30.1.2
-EFI_UDP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 30.1.1
-========================================== ======
-
-.. note:: Networking services are optional on platforms that do not support
- networking.
-
-IPV6 Network Support
-====================
-
-========================================== ======
-Service UEFI §
-========================================== ======
-EFI_DHCP6_PROTOCOL 29.3.2
-EFI_DHCP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 29.3.1
-EFI_TCP6_PROTOCOL 28.2.2
-EFI_TCP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.2.1
-EFI_IP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.6.1
-EFI_IP6_CONFIG_PROTOCOL 28.7
-EFI_UDP6_PROTOCOL 30.2.2
-EFI_UDP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 30.2.1
-========================================== ======
-
-.. note:: Networking services are optional on platforms that do not support
- networking.
-
-VLAN Protocols
-==============
-
-========================================== ======
-Service UEFI §
-========================================== ======
-EFI_VLAN_CONFIG_PROTOCOL 27.1
-========================================== ======
-
-iSCSI Protocols
-===============
-
-========================================== ======
-Service UEFI §
-========================================== ======
-EFI_ISCSI_INITIATOR_NAME_PROTOCOL 16.2
-========================================== ======
-
-.. note:: Support for iSCSI is only required on machines that lack persistent
- storage, such as a, HDD. This configuration is intended for thin clients and
- compute-only nodes
-
diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst
index a8fe3a3..f6a5802 100644
--- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst
+++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst
@@ -17,10 +17,6 @@ UEFI Compliance
EBBR compliant platforms shall conform to the requirements in [UEFI]_ § 2.6,
except where explicit exemptions are provided by this document.
-EBBR compliant platforms shall also implement the UEFI services and
-protocols that are listed in :ref:`appendix-uefi-requirements` of this
-document.
-
Block device partitioning
-------------------------
diff --git a/source/index.rst b/source/index.rst
index 8722694..186498f 100644
--- a/source/index.rst
+++ b/source/index.rst
@@ -51,5 +51,4 @@ Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
chapter2-uefi
chapter3-secureworld
chapter4-firmware-media
- appendix-a-uefi-features
references
--
2.13.0