Peter, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On Dec 16, 2022, at 07:37, Peter Yee via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp-06 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: 2022-12-15 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-12-09 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: The draft describes a privacy-enhancing scheme for HTTP requests that > makes use of two intermediaries between a client and the intended HTTP server. > The document is well written, with good explanations of the choices and > recommendations it makes. There are nits in the document that should be fixed > prior to publication. [Ready with nits] > > Sorry about the tardy review. > > Major issues: None. > > Minor issues: None. [Well, I had some, but they didn’t seem worth pursuing.] > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Page 4, 1st partial paragraph, 1st full sentence: change “minumum” to “minimum”. > > Page 4, section 2, 2nd bullet item: I’m not entirely happy with “accepts” as > the verb here, but “uses” probably isn’t quite right either. Page 6, section > 2.1, 1st bullet item: should this be “two additional regular HTTP requests” > instead of “two regular HTTP requests”? > > Page 8, 1st partial paragraph (“Oblivious Gateway Resource”), 1st partial > sentence: I’m not sure why “encapsulated” was removed from “that encapsulated > response” at the end of this sentence in draft -05. The output of encapsulation > isn’t a response per se, so returning “that response” sort of sounds like it > means the unencapsulated response. It isn’t, upon reflection, but it takes > extra thought where the removed word would have sufficed to make it clear > immediately. > > 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. > > 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. > > Page 14, item 3, 1st sentence: bracket “prk” in commas as done with “secret” in > item 1 on the previous page. > > Page 14, item 4, 1st sentence: fully bracket “key” in commas […AEAD key, key, > of…]. > > Page 14, item 7, 1st sentence: a comma is probably desirable after > “Encapsulated Response”. > > Page 14, last line before section 4.5: change “reponse” to “response”. > > Page 17, section 5.2, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: append a comma after > “malformed”. > > Page 21, section 6.2, 4th paragraph, last sentence: this is the second mention > of “information that a Client is aware of”. Would it be possible to give an > example or a pointer? > > Page 25, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: change “affects” to “effects”. > > Page 29, section 7, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete the second occurrence > of “of”. > > Page 38, near the middle of the page(!): change “Oblivous” to “Oblivious”. > > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
