Re: [dispatch] [Sframe] Dispatch of SFrame

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Wed, 17 June 2020 02:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3EBD3A0D98 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=E1iriWx7; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=nRb8mn8b
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WDER_b0mRAan for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 421543A0D97 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76EF67B1 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 22:11:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 22:11:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=090fGtDlexoiOO2o35E5K8enWf7lxny +Mc8abWTg3mM=; b=E1iriWx7PX7nKTSZtTOMb1CejMH/I4C9mTnvmtXRx6YOsfK aJ7ez3SM5pXIZ5cGQs3lAbl1+iUNOUyu4pPSL+0rSxcnz69HEBchIlElDgZm9bf4 WVotc/vQNpj/mhYAtPxjEnpOwaOGje+6Rd5ykbLzSnhkmXBnoNp478bBTPkxFeyc H3LRGg04hCQxe4BonY9xs6CLqCHY/dOjkr3RPBHGea9NgTx5wG0EZ6UccgtrKhkp 5cYencnz4cjFXGkFO8sq5AhQNeN+KNlqW+LtpNZM9hkDOZpnC9WTnrEC0l3mMVGn AUWQ/U7FO4a/KxPby+3v6wVV0UZsgfNGRpfPsrw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=090fGt DlexoiOO2o35E5K8enWf7lxny+Mc8abWTg3mM=; b=nRb8mn8bcjSp/R/WhgxKbH 8lK8TStS/veegrZaVS7wZjl3T07ZuBTiiAPPPMAwL4hhDKmYRgK3FMVOdaYL/jGF +WMJOxafjXbVedC+pWxpPO0jW0d9PucRdfb/9JAheDlsML+etDP9vuiGQnKXIV5q 2yspE2PWYg4SgBvnrUFeHO/6t0r92st9YARqfWlHDcz6TUoTltMZT+JfSzi2jQBD OEdHVZ0p+erz9JjIDzHfRGAP+FBsvzUp08Zh4VwmX3Gb8W8vN/N0tJc3ZTyhtyUg mxW1D3K+3BHVMfnBuJoUsstpnQSTAhKecefW42dDQYA8xcotASB0TCWdbwp6522Q ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:wXvpXkbTY0uCr-Ut93S0mGY5QLvCbraevmew27fDWfWVPidfezSLMg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudejuddgheehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekteeuieektdekleefke evhfekffevvdevgfekgfeluefgvdejjeegffeigedtjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvg ht
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:wXvpXvb0z4kmrOw9aUdMRkweYQc1uAGG5UmOb-2ylSPgioQdkgD6Yg> <xmx:wXvpXu-oyKGFy9NfvzLLfVZGYMsvRj9ymGCkDs7uQRU_j6G9zBoKdg> <xmx:wXvpXuoTbm0zfIEMO6B3wQjImLlWiHICSAhriAZgKi2mpQNDIdRLqg> <xmx:wnvpXk7TF1vIVDC2N16h1gZxssWbq2XHJg7ijbzBwROKlBgTeeTgHA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id B5C55E00D2; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 22:11:13 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-529-g3ee424a-fm-20200611.001-g3ee424a1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <3e0d6d89-1a4b-4988-812a-c1fbb3c6e1a0@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dvDEThHXKGJNgSYe9bfj4HK44H6wQpdGYRutzwReg90OQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOW+2dvDEThHXKGJNgSYe9bfj4HK44H6wQpdGYRutzwReg90OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:10:54 +1000
From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: dispatch@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/cpcPuZYppZT4Akyq_4XuxzleA0g>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] [Sframe] Dispatch of SFrame
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 02:11:17 -0000

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, at 14:48, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> [BA] Compared with PERC, SFrame is more efficient and transport 
> agnostic, more compatible with existing codec-independent SFUs, and 
> more flexible in terms of the scenarios it can potentially support.

I think that a more relevant comparison point would be between giving someone an COSE (analogous to SFrame) vs. TLS (analogous to PERC).  Sure, COSE has the ability to do more than an AEAD, but it also does far less.

I'm not really sure why people feel the need to dump on PERC.  It's fairly clear that it hasn't been successful, but that's just what happens with these things sometimes.

I see SFrame as an attempt to approach this problem more incrementally. That's fine.  Maybe this effort will result in adoption, which is what I care about.

While I might be less than thrilled with yet another cryptographic protection scheme, especially one with a custom AEAD and 32-bit authentication tags, those are details that a working group - in the security area - seems pretty well equipped to handle.