[Sframe] SFrame Draft - IETF 109 Follow Up
Bobo <the.bobo@gmail.com> Fri, 18 December 2020 18:06 UTC
Return-Path: <the.bobo@gmail.com>
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 D48383A0B54 for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:06:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 hXOnBmfj5eAl for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (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 A68DC3A0B44 for <sframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id p126so3704739oif.7 for <sframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:06:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ixfxmv7Hu6NlmhqNkddeYDfXztMakbZC5IUDqkeSfYY=; b=UmtQj2X/vQvqjaiBv9z0oxIIspnnZAo+XqAm1j1XpIYIqDD5gFffpJa2JKgdw6sBw9 4Ff+3qEY6EETQYA23D2Or0Dl131InXtXumcXUx4Xw+ogF2gACMqx8ZmWX9Lb4495VdG9 dEpb2otnR1pDoKngFNkgEuFMKEGDOqpI/En3r2Tp7CLSscZVIhOwp1+glBnRSK6qA1EL Mso0KMCVZns5PZr/URJAAUiUZi3XrL+RIQuAqu51SFGI0neE69uyRde1VQITVquel9iH snVMe9E6bIJkLqu8XEtedysxFK6W5AkSe5fHUNrpasYgTWmJ4OZMCbadurKj3ox9ZpRO cWXQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ixfxmv7Hu6NlmhqNkddeYDfXztMakbZC5IUDqkeSfYY=; b=IrKkuDbwPsWNrxGFA0zr9dPfR5+qqOSU9KUvv0ESkaypQACB4X5bAKyDKHg4LKenCa IMX+IfofQEKczUrNaGDEI6yOr9NBT/et0l5YYqwO3HcyUH2GGtP/jEXGNyODNaWiA+lW ElGYvQ9eQJoEt7W6P0tlZDsB3UBT5BWuzK+L9II+bIFiCxPREqKnVr0xu4QLRaJRJE7B Qv4DGXd7jBMR8HSRr2MC6BTgfw+6kK8rS2YTpKrIDVQ74kvee8j6bzJDe+W8b44PizzE n3qkZfA16YkBa9u7pgIPm+tNoVTbtz/5bUhLXVVkiAN8CQ4wOI0UJJVYjERYlRC5pCWl Ghkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530QTeeGFn74ZCyc+ec5nAbaY2ZCcrn9MKEd0XNVjxbYrEirPzI1 H1557UowK8K4lsXiGBdXpAwRsopckQoGho7s/GMX3Lgf
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwKwGgoemslhgXdgoOkN8nhZEOFRnQ7fWj/t562ti6AUvhTa7v69VqL1afykaKw3QZq2a29zgAolbXxckeFFMI=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:fc8d:: with SMTP id a135mr3674301oii.87.1608314811712; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:06:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Bobo <the.bobo@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:06:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM920XQ_j09N6_fkNa7d5dwu7XTijAa+ibGbb11-03wMOdjKUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: sframe@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000a0b3605b6c0f9e0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sframe/fhPx-Ui_308URdeSntUIXaq5qoI>
Subject: [Sframe] SFrame Draft - IETF 109 Follow Up
X-BeenThere: sframe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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, 18 Dec 2020 18:06:54 -0000
All, The Chairs have reviewed the discussion of draft-omara-sframe at IETF 109. While there was some support for adoption, it seems like there are enough people with reservations that we aren't comfortable saying that there is consensus to adopt yet. In the interests of making progress, we'd like to ask those with concerns to let us know what those concerns are. Some explanation of how you think those concerns might best be addressed would be appreciated. Much of what we heard seemed to be around the generic packetization/IDU implementation, and on fixing or removing the header authentication scheme. Our goal here is to have the next revision of the draft address those concerns. We hope to raise the question of adoption at that point. Thanks, Bobo (for the Chairs)