Ballot for draft-ietf-ohai-chunked-ohttp
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Thanks to Derrell Piper for their extensive secdir review. And I agree with MT's response, your analogies added as comments on the Appendix were useful.
Thank you for the work put into this document. Nice work as well about the right use of SHOULD per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ ! -éric
idnits points to few downrefs
Hi Tommy and Martin, Thank you for the clarifications provided by email and the changes made in [1]. These address all the points raised in my previous ballot [2]. Much appreciated. Cheers, Med [1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-ohai-chunked-ohttp-07&url2=draft-ietf-ohai-chunked-ohttp-08&difftype=--html [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/PVi_s4d3zlQVSTTvFOStMlOgo_8/
-- Section 3. Use cases that require the use of Chunked OHTTP SHOULD only use the chunked media types for their requests, to indicate that Chunked OHTTP is required. If the gateway unexpectedly does not support Chunked OHTTP, then the request will fail as if OHTTP as a whole were not supported. If clients retry requests with the non-chunked media type, a gateway could partition client anonymity sets by rejecting some requests and accepting others. -- Section 7 Specifically, clients SHOULD NOT fall back from Chunked OHTTP to the non-chunked variant if they are configured to used chunking. Falling back would allow clients to have inconsistent behavior that could be used to partition client anonymity sets. The text in Sections 3 and 7 appears to describe the risk for “non-chucked media types”. Since allowing fallback in not prohibited, when would this be acceptable?