Re: [Sframe] Status of the SFRAME WG

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Sat, 28 August 2021 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 7D64D3A1219 for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Aug 2021 10:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.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 vhBFRD10zKtn for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Aug 2021 10:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2b]) (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 B58873A121D for <sframe@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Aug 2021 10:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com with SMTP id dt3so5968140qvb.6 for <sframe@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Aug 2021 10:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SUFNbdhQnp5WaND8a+ng1jbDu5fBQWAhgtd19CEal8g=; b=mNXup/DJkDNV5PQ2BS+gQdy3ItrtQJLmNLJKPwfDAd7FDfHgOqPbmolZhuD4WIbyNR RWTONNYDxk31bWIAl/a2DFFiYsn2VWsxHncL/Y4y6TI1okmc0LNNQfCUzeMWrqK6akSM EpdjMIivAV4YKn93v1gVbdE0dJAS9vFQTyoSF9cK81iqvTEnItORcbgx+Pp7j7V/ZUfr oc5nmKcnl8n36X5qlJja7tCs+QvHpOpgpErReCni0fiE649gO5R6wDIZXpc/uJM7q7O9 yN9K5yUqlWircDDE241L4bG3S4i8zMw2hHriQjy1+M+8WT1tL4gtqxWwbu6KIb326+mL XaNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SUFNbdhQnp5WaND8a+ng1jbDu5fBQWAhgtd19CEal8g=; b=DAFOQi7YA/wDTU5zmUdAGjTKIi6zeUak22aiiGnlKcde/HewQVy+d0SeHUlVs4ta6c XTGFUO1Yuzt9WOcqhntuEK6Puw6RKR01H+PFxkzKiCugT3A+0W1aoWCB6l8o/A419odg dvht51LECpRQlRgPM4PTUORO1zOjFR6f+19k25NDy47h11YpnNNcPk/b5Ocsthub6Rxs 15MzG7f3WN6aAcY30ywtH5Gp270zwrr+8s8a2wMI3RlaHhkUwtSpWP+N8gp80Mt3hAna izBjHHA6NFUqPSn5vTdrqvm+En3/FDxFJfpIwI+6JHA3nMtNVWOdLsULpjInBMCT7iSB L5XA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530NTCfqP8Z+zN+e0j6cyiAoPqSG6XAKpaxRUlwIbEF8XtnSL35J ZWGFxKy0uwUiUG9ghRHrxnJYAP50gBDvyzS1BjHQCg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwYU7nY8qNRoXLNMJirSaKrJyx8kbqTAhnihROmIckBshtZwfMGPUJzSzrdxNTKhvht89POs9/3qJA8FAiGizs=
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:442c:: with SMTP id e12mr15651704qvt.36.1630173206255; Sat, 28 Aug 2021 10:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwY3MmthEq8zfSvdp6-m7Mk4pN8VXxDZ0-n6RyywgKWHTg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgTtRs_gDbhpx4Nk9nY0+S3QSs19TEXM-xbotGieYGrzug@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgTtRs_gDbhpx4Nk9nY0+S3QSs19TEXM-xbotGieYGrzug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 07:53:15 -1000
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQPqbZALM4YjoO4CUAMd2L=2V-LCc5sgM9tARm7HuGeOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: sframe@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e1a98505caa246ab"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sframe/MECw3Xx7BpvOltO70B3EuvoQyxo>
Subject: Re: [Sframe] Status of the SFRAME WG
X-BeenThere: sframe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 17:53:35 -0000

Sorry, just realized I blew past the AVTCORE question.

This group does have work to do, in terms of setting the base encapsulation
format and keying (draft-omara and draft-barnes).

The details of the RTP/SDP stuff might be worked out in AVTCORE, but I
think that will work best if this group aligns on a starting point first.

—RLB

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 07:50 Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

> Hi Murray,
>
> Thanks for checking in.  To be clear, work is still happening.  See the
> SFrame vs SPacket discussion at AVTCORE at IETF 111.  There have been some
> discussions among a few of us following on that, sporadically because of
> summer holidays.  I’ll try to gather up some notes from that and start some
> conversations on the mailing list.
>
> My read on the state of things is:
>
> 1. We should probably go ahead and adopt draft-omara-sframe and
> draft-barnes-sframe-mls.   There is shipping code using both of them, and
> pretty broad agreement on the contents.  In fact, I don’t expect a ton of
> changes needed before WGLC; but of course, other folks in the WG should
> have their say.
>
> 2. We need to figure out what the story is with regard to carrying SFrame
> in RTP and signaling it in SDP.  Sergio made a proposal in AVTCORE; I have
> some different ideas that I need to write up for the group.  We should
> probably have a virtual interim to get aligned on a path.
>
> 3. As background for that discussion, folks should be aware that the W3C
> WebRTC WG is considering taking up work that would leverage the RTP/SDP
> work, so there is a consumer lined up to add some shipping pressure.
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2021Aug/0038.html
>
> End of brain dump.  Interested if others have a different read.
>
> Cheers,
> —Richard
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 18:40 Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> I'm concerned with what appears to be rather low energy in this working
>> group.  There's been almost no activity on the list since IETF 110, and it
>> looks like there's been little interest shown in an interim meeting despite
>> efforts by the chairs to re-establish momentum.  It also looks like some of
>> the work expected to be done in SFRAME is actually happening in AVTCORE.
>>
>> Is there still work to be done here and the energy and interest to do
>> it?  Should we propose moving the remaining document to AVTCORE or some
>> other venue?  It had a milestone of June 2021, but that's now past without
>> adopting any document to satisfy it.
>>
>> -MSK, ART AD
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sframe mailing list
>> Sframe@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sframe
>>
>