Hi @mastupristi
Thank you for your reply and patience.
We do not have guidelines to get this example at this moment, so let me try to answer as best I can right now.
Regarding, Do you think this is the right thing to do?
I agree with you, at this moment it seems to me that this approach helps to disable secure boot on the MCUBoot, however I have not been able to test.
I think that after disabling secure boot on the bootlader, the next is to sign the target image but without the keys. This means calling the imgtool with some simple commands. I have been looking and I found a porting guide made by a third party, that could help as reference ( it is not official or recommended by us) but I think it provides an idea, see the Creating an MCUboot Image from this article https://interrupt.memfault.com/blog/mcuboot-overview#fn:4
Regarding, I propose that we modify the example to support this case as well.
Thank you for your suggestion , I will share this to the SDK team, but I can not promise anything. An argument against would be the push from the MCUBoot to standarize using signed images and our MCUXpresso Secure Provisioning Tool allowing you generate only signed images for the MCUBoot. But, I agree with you for didactical purposes.
Best regards,
Diego