IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sframe] Overhead analysis

Youenn Fablet <youenn@apple.com> Fri, 03 February 2023 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <youenn@apple.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 6B49AC16952C for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 02:16:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=apple.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 JMWm2DBzNxFs for <sframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 02:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vib-mx01.apple.com (vib-mx01.apple.com [17.132.96.0]) (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 9CB3FC169525 for <sframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 02:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crk-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.euro.apple.com (crk-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.euro.apple.com [17.66.55.17]) by vb11p01nt-mxp01.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.20.20220923 64bit (built Sep 23 2022)) with ESMTPS id <0RPI013791V3OM00@vb11p01nt-mxp01.apple.com> for sframe@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:16:16 +0000 (GMT)
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: Q14ooGKOnmbBlA8YRm6x7yNAkrBEpiQI
X-Proofpoint-GUID: Q14ooGKOnmbBlA8YRm6x7yNAkrBEpiQI
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.562, 18.0.930 definitions=2023-02-03_06:2023-02-03, 2023-02-03 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=interactive_user_notspam policy=interactive_user score=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2212070000 definitions=main-2302030095
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=from : message-id : content-type : mime-version : subject : date : in-reply-to : cc : to : references; s=20180706; bh=n+K05uyqJbuJZrMkIZd0UjQKjUCdg8fFQ5MyO85CAiY=; b=BEz7ehRavnquAiKI+N6SnjiKxPA8/TuVQpDJhtTQPo//Xi4R2dNsPiyYYqnzWRab6U1Y x3sxcaNHEayd9oWL1vyDFeydgXDrCd20E018TcLp0iIt2qiwKA3ZjdZj2v07ww0E0yLI bPENss2VG7umOaiV+0hlxtG+x1FWV8gw2aHCa7ozercm0jBmzEFMUeTityTn1eEvSlOG To8pmo+U6wWTW9sUlox3PAMeoh26boPbYm7QHoJfWoCj2ngw8VQ7osklYvEw0H+ix9TY 4a/3nHXyX1uvz/Ooj02L2eG5l0yzh1z/BhJwJVgpzwD4aoFb3VwXnOIcWhgTLQ2+SuIo hg==
Received: from crk-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.euro.apple.com (crk-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.euro.apple.com [17.72.136.16]) by crk-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.euro.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.20.20220923 64bit (built Sep 23 2022)) with ESMTPS id <0RPI000Y91V3CQ00@crk-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.euro.apple.com>; Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:16:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from process_milters-daemon.crk-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.euro.apple.com by crk-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.euro.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.20.20220923 64bit (built Sep 23 2022)) id <0RPI006001UVN300@crk-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.euro.apple.com>; Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:16:15 +0000 (GMT)
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: 9a351a80f8005473307b0fdaa86b372b
X-Va-E-CD: 1c22f28c17836f411c59b49badcf45a0
X-Va-R-CD: 66d9a698d18343ffc69da898f07e9a1c
X-Va-ID: 80ee3c47-4ae8-4c1c-a668-6d20bcb74450
X-Va-CD: 0
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: 9a351a80f8005473307b0fdaa86b372b
X-V-E-CD: 1c22f28c17836f411c59b49badcf45a0
X-V-R-CD: 66d9a698d18343ffc69da898f07e9a1c
X-V-ID: d1ed8541-9a24-4a78-81c3-7404af9674d3
X-V-CD: 0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.562, 18.0.930 definitions=2023-02-03_06:2023-02-03, 2023-02-03 signatures=0
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([17.235.220.221]) by crk-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.euro.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.20.20220923 64bit (built Sep 23 2022)) with ESMTPSA id <0RPI00GBZ1V16D00@crk-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.euro.apple.com>; Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:16:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: Youenn Fablet <youenn@apple.com>
Message-id: <2E29A063-948E-4F20-95C3-3DCEDED34A0A@apple.com>
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BD67A8D1-5B1D-487B-9D5F-2C448F7DC8C2"
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3734.100.4\))
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2023 11:16:03 +0100
In-reply-to: <CAL02cgTioov4_qPRQyq7vKfM7BpfbEH=okARBgeMmjAosM69OA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: sframe@ietf.org
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
References: <CAL02cgTioov4_qPRQyq7vKfM7BpfbEH=okARBgeMmjAosM69OA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3734.100.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sframe/xiDSzhe55G6cWLXuaN5ZkuDZESE>
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 10:16:22 -0000

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