Re: [Ohai] The OHAI WG has placed draft-ohai-chunked-ohttp in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

I support adoption.

While I agree CONNECT+TLS should be preferred to OHTTP for large/slow messages, there are cases where the response message size and expected latency is unknown to the client. In these cases, if 99% of the time the response size is small/fast and 1% of the time the response is large/slow, it would be advantageous to still be able to take advantage of OHTTP as an optimization - biasing towards the 99% case.

Thanks,
Eric Rosenberg

> On Jan 24, 2024, at 19:11, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024, at 02:00, David Schinazi wrote:
>> I'm opposed to adoption.
>> 
>> This mechanism appears to be geared at use cases that would be better served by single-HTTP-request-over-TLS-over-CONNECT (which I'll conveniently abbreviate to SHROTOC for the rest of this email). The reason that OHTTP itself exists is that it provides better performance than SHROTOC for small requests and responses, because the TLS handshake overhead is quite noticeable when the application data is small. This performance win justified the weaker security that OHTTP provides compared to SHROTOC. In particular, OHTTP lacks perfect forward secrecy and is vulnerable to replay attacks. Extending OHTTP to large messages creates something that has performance similar to SHROTOC but with much weaker security. If early data is considered useful, SHROTOC can leverage TLS 0-RTT with much better security properties: only the early data lacks PFS and replay-protection, any data exchanged after the client first's flights gets those protections. I'm opposed to creating a new mechanism when there is already an available solution with better security.
>> 
>> Apologies if this was covered in yesterday's meeting, I was unable to attend and did not find minutes or recordings for it.
> The recording of the meeting is up at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TB_NH2QIr08
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> David
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:10 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot=40mnot.net@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40mnot.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>> I support adoption.
>> 
>> > On 24 Jan 2024, at 10:27 am, Shivan Kaul Sahib <shivankaulsahib@gmail.com <mailto:shivankaulsahib@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > ohai all, 
>> > 
>> > Thanks to folks who attended the interim today to discuss https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ohai-chunked-ohttp-01.html. Overall, there was interest in adopting and working on the document. 
>> > 
>> > This email starts a 2 week call for adoption for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ohai-chunked-ohttp/. Please let us know what you think about OHAI adopting this document by February 6.
>> > 
>> > Thanks,
>> > Shivan & Richard
>> > 
>> > On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 15:24, IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org <mailto:ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > The OHAI WG has placed draft-ohai-chunked-ohttp in state
>> > Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Shivan Sahib)
>> > 
>> > The document is available at
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ohai-chunked-ohttp/
>> > 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > Ohai mailing list
>> > Ohai@ietf.org <mailto:Ohai@ietf.org>
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohai
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ohai mailing list
>> Ohai@ietf.org <mailto:Ohai@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohai
>> -- 
>> Ohai mailing list
>> Ohai@ietf.org <mailto:Ohai@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohai
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ohai mailing list
> Ohai@ietf.org <mailto:Ohai@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohai