Roy, I would always use "downstream" to mean "towards the client" as David (and the Envoy documentation) does. Are you saying that it can/does mean the opposite in some cases? Rory On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 10:14 AM Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > 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 > > -- Rory Hewitt https://www.linkedin.com/in/roryhewitt
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2025 18:37:33 UTC