IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sframe] Proposal: SFrame && SPacket && !SIDU

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@cosmosoftware.io> Mon, 06 September 2021 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@cosmosoftware.io>
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 02E583A19AF for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 11:54:06 -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=cosmosoftware-io.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 uDC8T3OFCXtI for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 11:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (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 4F9613A1A7E for <sframe@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 11:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id q22so1448932pfu.0 for <sframe@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 11:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cosmosoftware-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/0pNaW/5lGX9o5kygs2NJguX3B6lEXtPvmYEQrBoWkg=; b=e3NN9ew38HdpDlq91FBoUtPwiTCLc38A3ZfPs+lLTtF41ywJKesMPMhMxfcEVpDFiW 7s0vqJp4A/OGPSfTU7+v83nd/yH/5wIQ3pg35T9zuPysKJKnkzd8IiuoOr3PZfhTMoOM u3N20NLfn3pdaEOwFHPBDPg2GIRA9dx2Qlda0lcI+s8dK3E/Vzr2KuV2tSoVisFYJdW2 GU2l0VZGg0bFqc73PBDZ4KstZIClgWWvcGoVeeTCnCXkmikCp40b5jv1i8n2NIRJ1Ox1 h3d9EGxygzeZmd28N0R5B9SWHQ2ttz3emzR0g2PDS2EJgYT4HA5q5d1OSIPxG+lSpw86 emgA==
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=/0pNaW/5lGX9o5kygs2NJguX3B6lEXtPvmYEQrBoWkg=; b=az8Gqnrm4UbVHayiZwUSGdj3mL1vGMUIcNzqcukz3E1ZS6X8fqrcZAsNKP4oTNAgNb EWphbTgcrxRgpX2Ebs9QB51rfD1Se70eukueUjUiH7daL19/+OCPY4zF0NmMAYU1k+CV Qj4FYkb0kXSPUbBKO87TnwU2UoZFCVUGoAx7KFULd63FlNgNoFZlEs/3BcY8ZQPuRdk+ bb8UcbIkN2/IEbKfVRStyurdeHOsLkGPasLm5EaaXSSGEHWZQGpSP41zVVwPZq/5EPuk rL7Q4sOwWiKsYvCfK1X3UJ/JULz7zepUVumDj9Ai97gs15Er2JcQCxq/0xdE6P282Li/ Iesg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533YwXbCj7AEOsaFVYBdVNFKQRg7W02xZj6FPBgtRN0+ikFpVhnY 9Q+yHN39X1ipSTogF8osvIgXVULDDf42xa14J4D+9g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxMRwwyi449DC01xyMm9JRsGKt0mPCoX4pdwXIxgh81lAWnUTSCi66K3MCazTSiuH1FSy5k/d5G1FeXTjjaVx8=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:6e02:: with SMTP id j2mr13483423pgc.157.1630954435480; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 11:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL02cgSytJSLPziTzTOAQZFke47YrhdS381b4OmqcMPM1=Nzbw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgSytJSLPziTzTOAQZFke47YrhdS381b4OmqcMPM1=Nzbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@cosmosoftware.io>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 20:53:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CANRTqcNATCQcSyTr9Vcs3Y9uMJ1f_4FDKGo6idF9D+9ae+SX9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: sframe@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c5a49705cb582b1e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sframe/a8kJ4FhzLeQtBtHizlJd9uimq50>
Subject: Re: [Sframe] Proposal: SFrame && SPacket && !SIDU
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: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 18:54:07 -0000

Hi Richard,

Just one minor comment, the "media frames", should be spatial frames if SVC
is used so an SFU is able to not forward all spatial layers to the
receiver. Apart from that, I am ok with removing "SIDUs" from the scope.

Best regards
Sergio

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:20 PM Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I'd like to see if we can agree to limit our scope a bit.  There has been
> discussion of multiple levels at which SFrame could be applied:
>
> * "SFrame" - Whole media frames
> * "SPacket" - Individual RTP media payloads
> * "SIDU" - Some codec-specific "independently decodeable units"
>
> I'd like to propose that we take "SIDU" off of the table, but keep the
> other two.
>
> It seems like SFrame and SPacket both have strengths in certain scenarios
> (depending on how you want to trade off bandwidth vs. complexity), but
> they're both pretty straightforward in terms of how they integrate with the
> media processing pipeline.  In particular, they don't have any
> codec-dependence.  SIDU, by contrast, seems like a world of pain.  It
> requires that the encryption scheme be entangled with the codec, which
> requires special per-codec integration logic in the specifications.  And
> the bandwidth gains for all that complexity are not that large.
>
> Is there anyone here who feels that SIDU is something this group needs to
> spend time specifying?
>
> --Richard
> --
> Sframe mailing list
> Sframe@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sframe
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email