From nobody Mon Sep 14 10:27:59 2020
Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
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 8F0C93A0ACD;
 Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
 header.d=gmail.com
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 Arx0Y11u9DAG; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com (mail-wr1-x42b.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B99443A0D71;
 Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id g4so514447wrs.5;
 Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; 
 h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent
 :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language;
 bh=dvlmBUJL3BL4rf9dUddHCNTln4PU/ybhi8Xlml5bBmQ=;
 b=OFdImHvgK1OnWC6J6L6cgDbkm9OpjdZ4MypLJ8MSmR0yO0/5w+8ITLUNrpsEQ1BY3M
 gkpJHcfSw/rjKqAh8MUroF0Ros+mMo0793sOGbaLnU7RFjQFBdXVz5Q63gEgD3CAphAJ
 GshCygliOk+oHKmPhon+n4imajrwMn48Yt4xKoAisE7IrqBworznx0kqSO5K8PHX1bJg
 +n3q0/Hl8sBzDtoBYjwVBh2jVnLluuEailBGKqxLsa96tU5/ldqx0bG0DHLYZZDKO0tP
 ELxXgrEmAUxVyXFPbTTyrAIpq1YKKZh7tXbpxGS9W4X7hCbP/f/GhifAj3bN6nKW7UDs
 4qBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date
 :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language;
 bh=dvlmBUJL3BL4rf9dUddHCNTln4PU/ybhi8Xlml5bBmQ=;
 b=SgKBUzeu+AkWoqqP6OcpSv65Bwg7ZxV6BKIqRkhbpzVBVAcrqqPAUXF45jxLoA/WjK
 L4+o+pVRBbz000ED3CfIBOetiKu3sW+MJUQWNqyYJW4pdIwvH+Tw8DdBO3ERU/LvDUUM
 z0/TIsofPH7p/wbAvWRvFoNwbgqpYfoRMyCmp6eVINFBBH/NAyiTUntOPjD4iS0Imles
 +cI5szzaRlZbHBK+Kk/S3/+q1E2g2oW+zVOkrTvMIwx9PgnTnBaIdFMzf3EqFJOncRnk
 YA+c1P0i4LmN89RcehU1yrn6vIJiFaJb8Ko1T3GWwsozMg6SLizYuRtYPG0guOw96Gwu
 kCDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533H8AQixDlBq0Ku+h/9foJFXC8yq5cvpWNbeBsPti8Tr94FETMk
 Zi7urzobmSz4WegaeK9jyl3pwz7BrwXbcw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxoqDFs2P2gA/pEZnaY12pRm/9bJtXtaoBBgTiKrdZBNlBrIQQaDt2fO36ve3WOIzcNP4Czfg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:12c3:: with SMTP id
 l3mr17973964wrx.164.1600104467904; 
 Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.11] (79.108.125.160.dyn.user.ono.com.
 [79.108.125.160])
 by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id q18sm21198428wre.78.2020.09.14.10.27.47
 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>,
 "magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org"
 <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "rlb@ipv.sx"
 <rlb@ipv.sx>, "sergio.garcia.murillo@cosmosoftware.io"
 <sergio.garcia.murillo@cosmosoftware.io>
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, 
 "sframe@ietf.org" <sframe@ietf.org>
References: <159949693494.2875.16993532753477402380@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <CAL02cgS=y7mBt10n+jCGwUoy54eeH9ZXFijQdDSKk5Qt9mNrUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e0b5dc1c04ab6b5cee2c88b5b1b348d7c70a5d4c.camel@ericsson.com>
 <a3fbe87c-d60b-23f1-2968-c7ac6ad50ea4@cosmosoftware.io>
 <5c6c96621b29ebf4b1f84e53ae3a414c9d0ec3a5.camel@ericsson.com>
 <05085c6c-0c30-a407-8f41-b6c9be8100bc@gmail.com>
 <HE1PR0702MB3772BEFD51DAB83AC64A252695240@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <cb46a294-5ae4-d82f-efe8-f887c578ae30@gmail.com>
 <49b13e5efa0b2ac0a7b09842dbce8793dfcf6667.camel@ericsson.com>
 <d4179012-2d13-d48d-8805-a5b8747a47aa@gmail.com>
 <a6c19cb8e25006c78f674f3f4777442b376bf92b.camel@ericsson.com>
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21f0216-d3ae-832e-9648-d3283d7393aa@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 19:27:48 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a6c19cb8e25006c78f674f3f4777442b376bf92b.camel@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------A6220C6C449DF6DA458D35E4"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/esePDaRzGBwE64CWm-705gbQHrk>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] [Sframe] Magnus Westerlund's Block on
 charter-ietf-sframe-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)
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: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 17:27:53 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------A6220C6C449DF6DA458D35E4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 14/09/2020 16:12, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Sergio,
>
> Having 20 years of experience with RTP payload format designs some of your
> formulations made me a bit worried. After this discussion I think we are much
> closer on a common understanding of the high level functionality necessary.
>
> However, there will be questions about where we document that interaction and
> what dependencies that do exist on other specificaitons for scalable codecs that
> are generic and is desirable to require from RTP middleboxes. In addition even
> without RTP there will be need from the application to consider how it can
> utilize one SFRAME key and its IVs to carry multiple application sub-streams and
> the need to expose that to lower layer transport function to achiveve
> performance goals.


What I fail to understand is the nature of your concerns and how should 
we address them on the charter:

  * Is it something that we plan to do that is not covered in the charter?
  * Is it something that we don't plan to do but the charter is wide
    enough to allow it?
  * Is it something that we plan to do and it is covered in the charter
    but you don't agree to it?
  * Is it something that we don't plan to do and is neither covered by
    the charter and we should add it?


> So I think some clarification on the RTP payload format work, and it that is
> going to happen in the SFRAME WG. If happening in SFRAME WG I would like to have
> a joint WG Last call with AVTCORE WG.


I raised that question already a couple of times. I am not sure what is 
the role of the SFRAME WG regarding specifying a new RTP codec-agnostic 
payload.

IMHO this WG should collect the requirements, match them to current 
specifications, and if anything is missing, liaise with the appropriate 
groups in order to produce the specs based on our requirements.

Best regards

Sergio


--------------A6220C6C449DF6DA458D35E4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/09/2020 16:12, Magnus Westerlund
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:a6c19cb8e25006c78f674f3f4777442b376bf92b.camel@ericsson.com">
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Sergio,

Having 20 years of experience with RTP payload format designs some of your
formulations made me a bit worried. After this discussion I think we are much
closer on a common understanding of the high level functionality necessary. 

However, there will be questions about where we document that interaction and
what dependencies that do exist on other specificaitons for scalable codecs that
are generic and is desirable to require from RTP middleboxes. In addition even
without RTP there will be need from the application to consider how it can
utilize one SFRAME key and its IVs to carry multiple application sub-streams and
the need to expose that to lower layer transport function to achiveve
performance goals. </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>What I fail to understand is the nature of your concerns and how
      should we address them on the charter:</p>
    <ul>
      <li>Is it something that we plan to do that is not covered in the
        charter?</li>
      <li>Is it something that we don't plan to do but the charter is
        wide enough to allow it?</li>
      <li>Is it something that we plan to do and it is covered in the
        charter but you don't agree to it?</li>
      <li>Is it something that we don't plan to do and is neither
        covered by the charter and we should add it?<br>
      </li>
    </ul>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:a6c19cb8e25006c78f674f3f4777442b376bf92b.camel@ericsson.com">
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">So I think some clarification on the RTP payload format work, and it that is
going to happen in the SFRAME WG. If happening in SFRAME WG I would like to have
a joint WG Last call with AVTCORE WG. 
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>I raised that question already a couple of times. I am not sure
      what is the role of the SFRAME WG regarding specifying a new RTP
      codec-agnostic payload.<br>
    </p>
    <p>IMHO this WG should collect the requirements, match them to
      current specifications, and if anything is missing, liaise with
      the appropriate groups in order to produce the specs based on our
      requirements.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Best regards</p>
    <p>Sergio<br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>

--------------A6220C6C449DF6DA458D35E4--

