Re: [Ohai] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-06: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Pauly, for a prompt reaction and action.

May I suggest to go even further ? I.e., “Client and target SHOULD use this well-known resource”. It is really up to the authors/WG of course to decide whether adding this text improves the I-D.

Regards

-éric

From: iesg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 23:51
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-06: (with COMMENT)
Thanks for the review, Eric!

I’ve opened this PR to address your comments:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/draft-ohai-svcb-config/pull/59

Particularly, to address your comment about the well-known URI, I have rephrased the text to clarify:

 This document defines a well-known resource ({{WELLKNOWN}}),
 "/.well-known/ohttp-gateway", which is an Oblivious Gateway Resource
 available on the same host as the target resource.

Best,
Tommy


On Oct 2, 2023, at 2:21 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]> wrote:

Dear authors,

I would like to apologize for the presence of the DISCUSS section in my ballot. Monday morning, not enough coffee, ... and I left the 'DISCUSS' parts from my ballot template.

So, please ignore the DISCUSS related sentences as they should not be there.

-éric

On 02/10/2023, 10:59, "iesg on behalf of Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-06: 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/ <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-svcb-config/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config/>






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




# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-06


Thank you for the work put into this document.


Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for
my own education), and some nits.


Special thanks to Shivan Kaul Sahib for the shepherd's detailed write-up
including the WG consensus ***and*** the justification of the intended status.


Please note that Ralf Weber is the DNS directorate reviewer and you may want to
consider this dns-dir review as well when it will be available (no need to wait
for it though):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config/reviewrequest/18156/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config/reviewrequest/18156/>
(and I have read Tommy's reply to Ralf's Last Call review)


I hope that this review helps to improve the document,


Regards,


-éric


# DISCUSS


As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/>, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:


##


# COMMENTS


## Section 1


Should DNR also be mentioned (if applicable) ? Esp as this I-D contains section
4.2.2.


## Section 3


I would expect a direct object in ` it "upgrades"`, i.e., what is upgraded ?


## Section 4.2.2


Suggest to also add examples as in the DDR/HTTP sections above.


## Section 5


I hesitated to raise a DISCUSS level on this one... Should normative language
be used in `By default, the gateway for a target is defined as a well-known
resource ([WELLKNOWN]) on the target, "/.well-known/ohttp-gateway".` ? I.e.,
'by default' is rather vague.