[Ohttp] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ietf-ohttp-00-00: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ohttp-00-00: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Robert’s points, I had naïvely read the charter as being clearly for
"generic oblivious HTTP mechanism to hide clients from servers”, but after
looking at §3.1 (“applicability”) of draft-thomson-http-oblivious-01, I see his
point: it does seem as though the author views OHTTP as being a niche, not a
general, solution. The intended applicability of the work seems worth, at
minimum, making more explicit in the charter, and again seems like it supports
the idea of having a BOF where it can be discussed.

Also, I do think it seems worth considering whether a discovery mechanism
should be in-scope. On the face of it, it seems like a good idea, but maybe
there's some specific reason the proponents have ruled it out.

---
Here's my previous Discuss. Having read ekr's rebuttal, I was persuaded enough
by his argument that this is just a special case of a previously-chartered
activity, to withdraw the Block.

Thanks, Éric, for some thought-provoking discussion points. My own reaction is
that although they are interesting points, I don’t think business models have
been seen as within the IETF’s sphere of competence (points 1 and especially
2), nor are politics (points 3 and especially 4). One can of course argue that
no technology exists in a vacuum, and that all technologies have business and
political ramifications, nonetheless I don’t see these as being reasonable
bases for blocking progress on this proposal.

Nonetheless, I do agree that these points, even though wrong ;-) may well be
shared by other members of the community and that as a consequence, it’s
reasonable to hold a BOF.

All that said, I'm personally in favor of the work being progressed, I just
think it's reasonable to make sure community input has been duly considered.