[Ohttp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-ohttp-00-02: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 26 August 2021 12:19 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ohttp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ohttp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36AC23A0B06; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 05:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: ohttp-chairs@ietf.org, ohttp@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.36.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <162998036145.15536.790849841728558678@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 05:19:22 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohttp/Q0wvmpWL6yyu4kqNLuURCMvZFpM>
Subject: [Ohttp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-ohttp-00-02: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ohttp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Oblivious HTTP <ohttp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ohttp>, <mailto:ohttp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ohttp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ohttp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ohttp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohttp>, <mailto:ohttp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:19:23 -0000
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-ohttp-00-02: 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.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ohttp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I second Rob's comment about Martin Thomson's draft in the charter and Ben's comment on the trust relationship. Strongly support Jari's email about the name of this potential WG: using HTTP gives a hint to a generic HTTP proxy (and I was really confused when the charter was first discussed). On the same topic, thank you for adding "General purpose HTTP applications such as web browsing are not in scope". Using "server might be able to build a profile of client activity by correlating requests from the same client over time" as a motivation for this WG is kind of weird since servers could still use cookies to do so (if I understand correctly). Suggest s/plus any key configuration/plus any cryptographic materials configuration/ as "key" could be understood as "important" (I could even misunderstood its intended meaning! then s/key/important/ or s/key/required/). The statement "the working group may work on other use cases and deployment models" is pretty broad and I would prefer to request a rechartering to address other use cases. OTOH, wokring on discovery of OHTTP proxies is perfectly fine to add to the charter. Should there be a separate milestone for the applicability statement ? "The working group will prioritize work on the core protocol elements" prioritize against what since there is only one milestone ?
- [Ohttp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-iet… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: [Ohttp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Ohttp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter… Martin Thomson