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

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Tommy, the proposal to address my comment makes lots of sense.

// Zahed

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 23:52, Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks for the review, Zahed!
>
> I’ve addressed your comment along with Eric’s.
>
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/draft-ohai-svcb-config/pull/59
>
> The new text says:
>
>  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 4, 2023, at 2:32 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Zaheduzzaman Sarker 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/
> 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/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to David Black for the
> TSVART
> review.
>
> Like David I haven't find any TSV related issues in this specification.
> However, section 5 says -
>
>     By default, the gateway for a target is defined as a well-known
> resource
>     ([WELLKNOWN]) on the target, "/.well-known/ohttp-gateway".
>
> I would like to know where is this default behavior defined? Unless I have
> missed it, the OHTTP specification does not define this. In case this is
> something defined in the current document then I would suggest to use
> Normative
> language for this requirement.
>
>
>
>
>