[Sframe] SFrame signatures
Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Thu, 18 March 2021 22:16 UTC
Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 141BA3A0BBA for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 41BOW4JdtUi6 for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d]) (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 DFAD93A0BB8 for <Sframe@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com with SMTP id u3so4190712ybk.6 for <Sframe@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=u5SO4lsFskJ32GXmaK9Nzacg0Jsa8FMmXnPs+4/quvA=; b=fe2c9KdIOr9PboicK3Yl8B/lNYRD/62nDU4EKn9zstTTRE5TAd6uZiA/uqSzwWqace bwqT04rqmzVfPbNqmhN4lEn8qq6JTXDI8FQxOprFXgj7kWnkq11XXj4YbhWIuaQPwUni Bql2GVN6P77q+OGaaZGDb8hcbWAA6+xwukB3bzDeYoP9VrsagpJSc+iBpgGJK4F2XOqu ioMqv9UEmnBZJYFp8+vUc77Mk6kgh7YjJ1ZP2jyfqZq/7AIuTKu5nT3Tn/pGAOriGF/B vr2eE50IkZlCkWXSJ/L9XzQJNbaLApiQHH2iXCO7sAFDE8PW1iByz6+xF8/V8yypATyO 6i8g==
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=u5SO4lsFskJ32GXmaK9Nzacg0Jsa8FMmXnPs+4/quvA=; b=Oj9eaIseMclPdXIrKccL54O5QQz2iFZR3yTIJLqZCbTw7nlGMabP5G0U3lywgkOsbD aOBjjJ65qvrYfcfFK/FRM2cNfOS+vpcwlSv1OCbnnI9329hpDbLpPQhIEpCgTpnUhWjd PsmEYHmx2GolXlq3zOAAD/z1eIkOYWzCg+yEJcQN2RtVajnSWriZRo8zUzSs3ZDg9SAd z13XwsGr0HJ6ydCH8/jrVkJfTrVU09omNPdatBxtAOYUB0Evp67vyLJ9m1CgvHX9qqhW 71huYgEEwPwPLBcxjjq7n1f76oc2cHAAyYg8pU/xGLmBAoMJBc5ku7wvlGYPkhI58rHo OUog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531n5OTajN2lHIetYhpwEiTEs1CmKdmwksa8zZTUzLkEbesMWbyF 2WLCoLOE+EiSRQOBGfs8KjHKD/g1+7uE2DwwRAO+VtTcgqQj99Fy
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyJjnDUhWWW6PRTHs2P5Qq99pZQE4jUf50WcR4EcG0Fudr2gD8GUWBZYxAg96EnhWqneNllPU9vyfx1/T/Dqxo=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3802:: with SMTP id f2mr2270058yba.48.1616105759310; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:15:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-03Jt4w1PuSA-cTyM_GpD6rDFkz4US_Yw35YRHbikr3iA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sframe@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b4834805bdd6f1c7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sframe/iuDLGAuGgKjfW8Tcj3P6q70jQ-I>
Subject: [Sframe] SFrame signatures
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: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 22:16:10 -0000
In recent discussions regarding signatures for SFrame we have questioned the usefulness of this feature and considered removing it. Upon looking closer into the details here, we have also determined more work would be required to properly specify it. Given this, the authoring team would like to officially propose removing the signature feature from the specification. If you are using SFrame signatures in your application and disagree with this direction, please let us know by the end of next week (Friday, March 26). Justin
- [Sframe] SFrame signatures Justin Uberti
- Re: [Sframe] SFrame signatures Cullen Jennings
- Re: [Sframe] SFrame signatures Raphael Robert
- Re: [Sframe] SFrame signatures Martin Thomson
- Re: [Sframe] SFrame signatures Saúl Ibarra Corretgé