Subject: [Ohai] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ohai-chunked-ohttp-07: (with COMMENT)
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
To: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2026 08:38:31 -0800
List-Id: Oblivious HTTP Application Intermediation <ohai.ietf.org>

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ohai-chunked-ohttp-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ohai-chunked-ohttp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Section 3.
   Use cases that require the use of Chunked OHTTP SHOULD only use the
   chunked media types for their requests, to indicate that Chunked
   OHTTP is required.  If the gateway unexpectedly does not support
   Chunked OHTTP, then the request will fail as if OHTTP as a whole were
   not supported.  If clients retry requests with the non-chunked media
   type, a gateway could partition client anonymity sets by rejecting
   some requests and accepting others.
-- Section 7
   Specifically, clients SHOULD NOT fall back from Chunked OHTTP to the
   non-chunked variant if they are configured to used chunking.  Falling
   back would allow clients to have inconsistent behavior that could be
   used to partition client anonymity sets.

The text in Sections 3 and 7 appears to describe the risk for “non-chucked
media types”. Since allowing fallback in not prohibited, when would this be
acceptable?