From nobody Tue Jan 12 03:01:17 2021 Return-Path: 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 764843A10BA for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 03:01:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 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_BLOCKED=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 b6pe-2Y5EuXx for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 03:01:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl1-x630.google.com (mail-pl1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::630]) (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 CF6D43A10BD for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 03:01:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x630.google.com with SMTP id q4so1205171plr.7 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 03:01:14 -0800 (PST) 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=4XrA1UBw2QEkkKd6IndeuGt8rZP8SD/dkx3LS3SCamw=; b=m1oK9kxGlvbb/m5L0q+H8jfG1LYL2rADMJavu+JX4M4ayF2p9UVjjf/hN6hMDTSquf AtgU4m0OE82KcEZ7EsN8sICeHRUZCNfwL/7h/DTpJUtXFCnTPi7B5LxoXS7iZ+q4r+gy /F0TxDGby4HvNJ1pgwdeQ316TYjDZDlBnLqezTB6qd9PdfYRDUYC/QyEpGNu2gK/x8Cd +zHYr5z359nyG5ApKWRBGKrWkdmYWnSKd7J/1HtGW8iIN8anCFLfmwu4iI1PVk3+2g+U 3COlfqRBk9pJSD99ALa1KoUp9G1vas05dn7Hh2Le9mAvPaZqw0PRGTfRn3qJSy9H5zck 6wIA== 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=4XrA1UBw2QEkkKd6IndeuGt8rZP8SD/dkx3LS3SCamw=; b=l0W7Gdp+iOGDwAcBr/NZFsPo7LF/Pb71SPqN6yWFINRT85xDfMEocgYEIeWMrkU9LF EX//Sa3t848B1gVHisEKllqz9nRDvLUY1lxix44chvtVCOGXZS2mZXu1nYysAVhH1ISi YDN4L/ZLn+Ar5scGeI3vuUcYCH1zFIWvTnnz2MWp65t4IUvyb9t41s0lverismdu0LlP woJaBtBol12PdbmbxGVtVLjYITJHtVXeadyEQcPvOyu2niLBRFDXSWCqXrejszsTjiZL 1fc8+lPfG/eWV4SX6c9aoKdWJZUS2kUspKaAqW71gpQSHpaJk5CemyNWGbqFVKA353mR TL8w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Hv3ChbBzQQ1jgYcOl2cqN3DTuhPSr7ygIknsButftnXqv7ISG SBdvfWfAKAqAhFbAHRXmY9aE1fot6sgOJHaXeidIag== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzAQXh/rdU5p49e3VJZVakoL/uHpkQ4ABBmzbEgZx2KI4EGzTB2jRcKHS5iw6mzV4t9ricJ5nK7LNeG0q0mVCE= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7d8e:b029:da:cfcb:f4c4 with SMTP id a14-20020a1709027d8eb02900dacfcbf4c4mr4071428plm.79.1610449274414; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 03:01:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Sergio murillo Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:01:03 +0100 Message-ID: To: Bobo Cc: sframe@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ee3afc05b8b1f084" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Sframe] SFrame Draft - IETF 109 Follow Up X-BeenThere: sframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 11:01:17 -0000 --000000000000ee3afc05b8b1f084 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Bobo, Regarding the generic packetization and IDU support, the work has already started on the AVTCore group and Youenn and I have already started to prepare the initial draft of the generic packetization format. Best regards Sergio On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:06 PM Bobo wrote: > 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) > -- > Sframe mailing list > Sframe@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sframe > --000000000000ee3afc05b8b1f084 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Bobo,

Regarding the generic=C2=A0pac= ketization and IDU support, the work has already started on the AVTCore gro= up and Youenn and I have already started to prepare the initial draft of th= e generic packetization format.

Best regards
Sergio

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:06 PM Bobo <the.bobo@gmail.com> wrote:
All,

The Chairs = have reviewed the discussion of draft-omara-sframe at IETF 109.=C2=A0 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 cons= ensus to adopt yet.

In t= he interests of making progress, we'd like to ask those with concerns t= o let us know what those concerns are.=C2=A0 Some explanation of how you th= ink those concerns might best be addressed would be appreciated.=C2=A0=C2= =A0

Much of what we hear= d 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.=C2=A0 We hope to raise the question of ad= option at that point.

Th= anks,
Bobo (for the Chairs)
--
Sframe mailing list
Sframe@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sframe
--000000000000ee3afc05b8b1f084-- From nobody Tue Jan 19 19:08:33 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sframe@ietf.org Delivered-To: sframe@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C733A0C80; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 19:08:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: mt@lowentropy.net, sframe-chairs@ietf.org, sframe@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.24.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <161111210969.31733.3619057207230539990@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 19:08:29 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Sframe] sframe - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 110 X-BeenThere: sframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 03:08:30 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Martin Thomson, a Chair of the sframe working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Secure Media Frames Area Name: Applications and Real-Time Area Session Requester: Martin Thomson Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1 Hour Number of Attendees: 30 Conflicts to Avoid: Chair Conflict: quic tls webtrans wpack httpbis dispatch Technology Overlap: avtcore People who must be present: Murray Kucherawy Martin Thomson Bobo Bose-Kolanu Resources Requested: Special Requests: I assume that the conflict tool manages the conflicts of the responsible area director and so I won't include the email groups that were listed last time. ---------------------------------------------------------