Thanks for the quick response, Martin. I agree with all of your points below. I appreciate your considering my belated input. -Peter -----Original Message----- From: Martin Thomson <mt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 10:07 PM To: Peter Yee <peter@xxxxxxxxxx>; gen-art@xxxxxxxx Cc: draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; ohai@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp-06 Hi Peter, You are the first to review the new revision, so thanks. https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/oblivious-http/pull/235 contains most of the fixes here. On Fri, Dec 16, 2022, at 16:37, Peter Yee via Datatracker wrote: > Page 6, section > 2.1, 1st bullet item: should this be “two additional regular HTTP requests” > instead of “two regular HTTP requests”? The typical deployment - where gateway and target are colocated - only involves two requests in total. The "at least" exists here to imply that there might be more, though the two is a hard minimum (or minumum, I guess). > Page 8, 3rd full paragraph (“Encoding..”), 3rd sentence: The len() > function doesn’t appear to be referenced anywhere else in the > document, at least from a cursory search. Delete the sentence if the function is unneeded. Good catch. > Page 9, section 3.2, figure 2: Is 262140 the right number here? It’s > not divisible by 32. I would have thought it needed to be. Yeah, that's a straight-up mistake; it doesn't even divide by 8. Also, I realized that this doesn't define what the length field means for the subsequent field. That's a big error that I'll correct separately. > Page 17, section 5.2, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: append a comma > after “malformed”. I think that the rules say you don't need commas until your list has 3 items. [PEY] Parsing error on my part. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
