[Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-capport-api-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-api/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This document is clearly written. Thanks.

I am also confused by this sentence at the end of section 4.1 about failed
authentication: “It may still be possible for the user to access the network by
being redirected to a web portal.”

I suggest “...access the network by redirecting a clear text webpage to a web
portal.”  I was a bit confused by the original wording.

As I said in the architecture review, the term for the user portal keeps
changing. Over there it’s called a “Captive Portal Server” and a “web portal
server”. Here it’s a “user-portal.” The authors of the two docs should get
together and agree on a term.

One nit:
s/extenal/external