IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sframe] Overhead analysis

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 03 February 2023 12:33 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 1A295C16B5CB for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 04:33:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, 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=ipv-sx.20210112.gappssmtp.com
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 gonfaO7-I-jQ for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 04:33:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x336.google.com (mail-wm1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 D924EC139C24 for <sframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 04:33:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x336.google.com with SMTP id bg26so3781300wmb.0 for <sframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Feb 2023 04:33:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lxYErn0f/4h+Uo3gyc8QnaphvM48QHCqF7XFgTPky/M=; b=1cFbetd26XW3RtIO+BTfWmnkXlqAt0KwG2DsfMhC1LAJOW/jbP/IEFuKly6+ewWIPh HMJgZxTEg6H7Azt1TEp28JN/YXcIKcJICaNQQnzpunJgToxOFMBBWAp+GEi4nTUNyvjn GCi9lgswjZC+x1cex2B5IN++JfY5ef50iW1fAs05us4sCiWHUrH9w5Pu8hJ4FB2UTgWd mNwzUPskRoFaPxHruO+gTREhJB+JWFFqlJj8NxIoheD7bzsI6+ula3p3yaHoe7EOE7uA +3baL22lXYSXi8XcrGuNqvysYCdE+o1vZYuktm+rX9wn5ZvgYuJnobIlSWEKWOZxCo3Y aiSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=lxYErn0f/4h+Uo3gyc8QnaphvM48QHCqF7XFgTPky/M=; b=yueBaKmMmL3aLC7MTj8fU2h1E3POJWMNlybX1soi0ScpbMFkiW1/6muK6CSJSsIyRV 4jpNFgA4LoqazcozG70EyYtYW0ncwoaoUOkbHdSn5gP+0cGVuTXt3/KinHZWuzqZ8bB0 HqsOV3R/DGuPW+R4lOxJXbOo59ieT7ifSMPjq26RnX6frV9gq9NTSRrJwFJ+RDHBBg5D JFS8emgkDsm1c32q1da8obhnFaUzYDi8Sm83J45vx+jQ5MWZIbEEveJqpBWK4DH47ejJ i+zsSAGf+O1C5JunNf0DOAehD3x3FZ/XDTVttZgAYvxL005E69Mcy9xzwPn/kzTPTrYZ oQuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKV8NLtoJyNtPWI0hpzGsELOe1v2XcBnKXsKMk8Y0O9KFGUgnSB7 0Re395QE9V8uYWaipnxHdRts1Nwy03W/uwogELOoliOk6xqEVg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set99bWoDsgidk38Wsn4kQtiel+wLxdE+iqJePMYnr2yOnzPiPKQlIFyx6XP6kderK8MXuKbF+qLlfgHmEnzelwU=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cdf0:0:b0:3df:e612:64a8 with SMTP id p16-20020a7bcdf0000000b003dfe61264a8mr151228wmj.119.1675427633994; Fri, 03 Feb 2023 04:33:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL02cgTioov4_qPRQyq7vKfM7BpfbEH=okARBgeMmjAosM69OA@mail.gmail.com> <2E29A063-948E-4F20-95C3-3DCEDED34A0A@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <2E29A063-948E-4F20-95C3-3DCEDED34A0A@apple.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2023 07:33:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgST3YyFo-yJ398VSAA22UbbbWcMRX=MfxcwP_H_ns0wyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Youenn Fablet <youenn@apple.com>
Cc: sframe@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f8ae4105f3cae447"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sframe/UERdYUt7p5A8z9ePzlh-T85sOVE>
Subject: Re: [Sframe] Overhead analysis
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2023 12:33:58 -0000

Right, I understood the consensus here to be that this WG was working on
the encryption framing itself, and not any particular transport binding.
--Richard

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 5:16 AM Youenn Fablet <youenn@apple.com> wrote:

> Quickly looking at the new analysis, I find it useful.
>
> In general, I would find useful to separate the SFrame format itself from
> the particular transport issues.
> The overhead analysis is mostly interesting when knowing the particular
> transport (RTP say) and how SFrame is applied (whole frame or per packet).
> As such, I tend to prefer the format to be in a document and the transport
> binding and overhead analysis in another document.
>
> The way you wrote the PR though seems to hit a sweet spot for providing
> general information about how to apply SFrame and the potential perf
> impacts.
> Keeping it in this document seems ok as it might help any SFrame adopter.
>
> On 2 Feb 2023, at 23:49, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I just submitted a couple of editorial PRs (which I just merged because
> they were fixing bugs or doing minor rearrangements), as well as a more
> substantive PR that re-does the overhead analysis in the draft:
>
> https://github.com/sframe-wg/sframe/pull/95
>
> It would be good to know if folks (a) find the new approach useful, (b)
> prefer the old approach, (c) think we should do something different, or (d)
> think we should just delete this section altogether.
>
> Feel free to respond here or on the PR.  Mainly just posting here for
> visibility.
>
> Cheers,
> --Richard
> --
> Sframe mailing list
> Sframe@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sframe
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email