Subject: [Sframe] PRs!

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 18:52:25 -0500

Hey all,

It doesn't look like we have a slot at IETF 113, but this still seemed like
a propitious time to re-energize this group.  I've started doing a review
of the spec, and just posted PRs on the first two, non-normative sections:

https://github.com/eomara/sframe/pull/72
https://github.com/eomara/sframe/pull/73

Feedback welcome!  There should obviously be more as I continue working
through the spec.

It seems like we should probably have a virtual interim at some point to
discuss these.

Also, I think we agreed to adopt the draft, so should the authors resubmit
as draft-ietf-sframe-protocol?

Cheers,
--Richard

---

From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 09:42:58 +0100

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the PR, I think that the editorial changes are ok, but I have a
concern regarding if we should try first to split the draft, one containing
the SFrame/SPacket description and usage, and another one to only specify
how the encryption process works for  a given blob regardless it is SFrame
or SPacket. Although I guess we can just merge the PRs and then do the
split too.

Best regards
Sergio

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:52 AM Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> It doesn't look like we have a slot at IETF 113, but this still seemed
> like a propitious time to re-energize this group.  I've started doing a
> review of the spec, and just posted PRs on the first two, non-normative
> sections:
>
> --
> Sframe mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sframe
>