IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Sframe] Feedback on draft-ietf-sframe-enc-04

Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net> Thu, 16 November 2023 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <caw@heapingbits.net>
X-Original-To: sframe@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sframe@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E770CC14F747 for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:41:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.805
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.805 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=heapingbits.net header.b="O9dQbEYE"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="e9xaIAEV"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x0qUj86xv5qP for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:40:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A18BC14CE52 for <sframe@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:40:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA3A5C008C for <sframe@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 09:40:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 16 Nov 2023 09:40:52 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heapingbits.net; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1700145652; x=1700232052; bh=oRjWkugELXDTCPxSNy7OY1jHz GRiAC4YV0T0fpUdrkk=; b=O9dQbEYESVgBz4X7Id5/rq5IPmWQRadDUmTwd+y4s Kvk96n9+/RHtRyoWoTqrRL1G1ukTPUNalKEiDXLsGfsweithkFaBTDzzmo6dGRVh bx3QYHE8gTIXhH4dzdubJrPhN/ZS9PbKXdiAxGyDKn0qI1qxZAnFAchHYMUFS8j4 YXNiRNK0F9POLms3v3W4okeVZoNxs4w5hvyvr0OSgXHrSSoJ9aYQrW4Yqgu7gDLG rjnoz1AJXoeaZpMpc9BO/iwk7e1Iz2ah6xHJQrbeOh7Ge/5k4jRid1A6uE3LMDBZ E/32OdpqN618DAE8ekvw+Qq9x3cMXzAsrv2i4LEdnwkNQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1700145652; x=1700232052; bh=oRjWkugELXDTCPxSNy7OY1jHzGRiAC4YV0T 0fpUdrkk=; b=e9xaIAEV36gLJ4xgLmR7frS3ikF2MX1wmvuqrXtGqDpIw9FdCIR vr8XKDuXofbmjHRYXwlgefhwPeyGyetmFu9Ryju/oNlNgMxDmxG4bOYxwXNydHoE Ycciz8mhoR4FxAj75vzmwADnUDFQsWlLnLynu4//jz6sgMXKRvIyIi8sqMGABU+E i1ICiIxoJyCGAHlMksSSsioSxmLCGaD8PGIede6xFhX3BJWxLnaB31AB7GlXOIHt 8pnlglheGZEpzXe7i/WlYwifwJHBzopR9hRLIL7j0UDvO1ilt8jufu3T/QjPBLLa ZjF49x7OFuZCFmSLt5KHqHt24ALbp1ZuJUA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:8ylWZRDAOiYV2T3JF0bqVXe52mwae9BFP3RRqAh8AvDbqGkTaR9OqQ> <xme:8ylWZfhCSEajy6nXFPMG5lJDj2thQrKiaSUOatSyW71O2ywCcx4ryaq0BF0K6Hfia 6w5DeGM03V0jHVqL4Q>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:8ylWZcmr75wZtV8Un-HikL9U-fDJM6rNlgsB4cw7gV0tUgJrtU0ekNdH3UdJKNvSDxACb3lGGPZjHYWDUxsQgCC5sjQkC1QkfEFo_cF3r8b1rw3SecHIEg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrudefkedgieehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhtggguffkfffvofesrgdtmherhh dtjeenucfhrhhomhepvehhrhhishhtohhphhgvrhcuhghoohguuceotggrfieshhgvrghp ihhnghgsihhtshdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfffgjedvteehteeljeejhf ekgfetvdfhieehudfgveevveehvddtffdtgeehuefhnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhu sgdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpegtrgifsehhvggrphhinhhgsghithhsrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:9ClWZbwmkhaIL4l7ass6sZ6K2vV5fqA1qWdNzzi0TJCqs1uDXSTLaw> <xmx:9ClWZWQqm-RvobtdgRsnL6IKWK5U4ReJ1aBx4Dn-8LfQulvhOiPDDA> <xmx:9ClWZeaAPQsHm4MPKCPYDV-KonXwGBDLpJTYoIKgEpEya-k9kjYwWQ> <xmx:9ClWZdPchBbOFTXrGyq4X2gwpT-oc-5Pk0LWnEOXyJvOcXLhVC3UTQ>
Feedback-ID: i2f494406:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <sframe@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 09:40:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6C7F4A57-58BF-49B1-BC5A-5F0AF0D8D90A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.100.2.1.4\))
Message-Id: <0703284B-8829-45E3-B39B-67D2BBD86DB5@heapingbits.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 09:40:41 -0500
To: sframe@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.100.2.1.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sframe/Esxs5JHNDg9febUMm8K-nwUxP9I>
Subject: [Sframe] Feedback on draft-ietf-sframe-enc-04
X-BeenThere: sframe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Media Frames <sframe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sframe>, <mailto:sframe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sframe/>
List-Post: <mailto:sframe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sframe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sframe>, <mailto:sframe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:41:01 -0000

Hi folks,

I reviewed draft-ietf-sframe-enc-04 for the WGLC. Overall, I found the specification very well written. I submitted a couple of issues I think ought to be addressed [1], as well as an editorial PR that I think helps tidy up some things [2]. I think the document is ready to proceed when these issues are resolved.

I’d like to call out issues #158 [3] and #154 [4] specifically. Issue #158 seems like it can be resolved with a normative change or, alternatively, some motivating text. (I suppose another way would be to remove metadata, but I think SFrame should keep the metadata concept — it’s quite cheap and can help future extensibility). Issue #154 may also require a normative change to specify decryption failure behavior.

As an aside, out of curiosity, how many implementations of SFrame exist? Are they tracked anywhere?

Best,
Chris

[1] https://github.com/sframe-wg/sframe/issues/created_by/chris-wood
[2] https://github.com/sframe-wg/sframe/pull/153
[3] https://github.com/sframe-wg/sframe/issues/158
[4] https://github.com/sframe-wg/sframe/issues/154

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email