Re: Working Group Last Call: Incremental HTTP Messages

> On Oct 15, 2025, at 7:02 PM, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> As someone who's currently dealing with trying to get chunked OHTTP to work through a buffering intermediary, I support this work moving forward.
> 
> One small editorial nit: the term "downstream" was ambiguous to me, because in Envoy proxy terminology, "downstream" means "towards the client". I realize that this draft reuses the definition from 9110, but perhaps a reminder would help. Maybe something like: <<In this document, the term "downstream" uses the definition from Section 3.7 of RFC 9110".

Umm, no.  Fix the Envoy proxy terminology so that it isn't obviously wrong.

    https://www.envoyproxy.io/docs/envoy/latest/intro/arch_overview/intro/terminology

Seriously, I'd bet half the users who read that explanation go "WTF? Never mind, these
folks clearly don't understand how HTTP works." It is not "slightly contentious" to
use the wrong terms for documenting message flow.  It's just wrong.

....Roy