IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 03 March 2016 06:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950711B3EF4 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:38:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i08PLYlYxgEN for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:38:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 914A41A1A28 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:38:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E6B9622E262; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 01:38:16 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnW_7NK4Egmjsg4g3emZcD2Z_NViNCBLitUJiBNJMY8A2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 17:38:14 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F9514444-F484-4FD8-BA04-1C7FBBC18F5A@mnot.net>
References: <D2FCEB47.12A6DC%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <C639FBF3-76DF-4334-8262-C6832DF01949@mnot.net> <CABkgnnW_7NK4Egmjsg4g3emZcD2Z_NViNCBLitUJiBNJMY8A2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/7SkolSzl7g7MTmp_6ZuVN0zAB6w>
Cc: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>, "captive-portals@ietf.org" <captive-portals@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <captive-portals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/captive-portals/>
List-Post: <mailto:captive-portals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 06:38:26 -0000

> On 3 Mar 2016, at 5:37 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 3 March 2016 at 13:02, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> Regarding notifications, I think we should discuss whether it's useful to consider them as 'captive portals' or not. The techniques are similar in many cases, but there are some important differences.
> 
> I caution that this might be a case where we have to watch scope.  It
> might be good to understand the methods and reasons, but those
> differences could lead us down a rathole.

+1


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email