Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp-06

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Peter, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

Lars


> On Dec 16, 2022, at 07:37, Peter Yee via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp-06
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review Date: 2022-12-15
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-12-09
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: The draft describes a privacy-enhancing scheme for HTTP requests that
> makes use of two intermediaries between a client and the intended HTTP server.
> The document is well written, with good explanations of the choices and
> recommendations it makes. There are nits in the document that should be fixed
> prior to publication. [Ready with nits]
> 
> Sorry about the tardy review.
> 
> Major issues: None.
> 
> Minor issues: None. [Well, I had some, but they didn’t seem worth pursuing.]
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Page 4, 1st partial paragraph, 1st full sentence: change “minumum” to “minimum”.
> 
> Page 4, section 2, 2nd bullet item: I’m not entirely happy with “accepts” as
> the verb here, but “uses” probably isn’t quite right either. Page 6, section
> 2.1, 1st bullet item: should this be “two additional regular HTTP requests”
> instead of “two regular HTTP requests”?
> 
> Page 8, 1st partial paragraph (“Oblivious Gateway Resource”), 1st partial
> sentence: I’m not sure why “encapsulated” was removed from “that encapsulated
> response” at the end of this sentence in draft -05. The output of encapsulation
> isn’t a response per se, so returning “that response” sort of sounds like it
> means the unencapsulated response. It isn’t, upon reflection, but it takes
> extra thought where the removed word would have sufficed to make it clear
> immediately.
> 
> Page 8, 3rd full paragraph (“Encoding..”), 3rd sentence: The len() function
> doesn’t appear to be referenced anywhere else in the document, at least from a
> cursory search. Delete the sentence if the function is unneeded.
> 
> Page 9, section 3.2, figure 2: Is 262140 the right number here? It’s not
> divisible by 32. I would have thought it needed to be.
> 
> Page 14, item 3, 1st sentence: bracket “prk” in commas as done with “secret” in
> item 1 on the previous page.
> 
> Page 14, item 4, 1st sentence: fully bracket “key” in commas […AEAD key, key,
> of…].
> 
> Page 14, item 7, 1st sentence: a comma is probably desirable after
> “Encapsulated Response”.
> 
> Page 14, last line before section 4.5: change “reponse” to “response”.
> 
> Page 17, section 5.2, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: append a comma after
> “malformed”.
> 
> Page 21, section 6.2, 4th paragraph, last sentence: this is the second mention
> of “information that a Client is aware of”. Would it be possible to give an
> example or a pointer?
> 
> Page 25, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: change “affects” to “effects”.
> 
> Page 29, section 7, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete the second occurrence
> of “of”.
> 
> Page 38, near the middle of the page(!): change “Oblivous” to “Oblivious”.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> last-call mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call