[Ohttp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-ohttp-00-02: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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 ?