Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Kyle Larose <kyle@agilicus.com> Mon, 08 June 2020 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <kyle@agilicus.com>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F7F3A09D6 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 05:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=agilicus.com
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 mfnn8DrCp7bo for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 05:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD6D3A09D5 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 05:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id c8so18340259iob.6 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 05:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=agilicus.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MFy1v1wVjvUgqRaiTS0775vwQNRlDs4xS2BqSkeRRxI=; b=Ry+7xCuOqZtp+42jt+2r25LnrhUSDozVdYzg3Hlv46puwKkpzPasw6fs2kU8CisEeA gVAdSEmVWmHdXdI2rq6GHDU3YGSzaLzkddbrkBrH5AuS+iyim/C/Xmancwx0zd6n9jS8 kEeGTbSXztx3bp4g1rkSBdn4aAlvCYwmuwo7zJJgK+792AMBC8SA9I8gF39GN3YC93KH nlRgYgMKSYR2t1jhBpLzwAB1Fjid8ceB45mZyqwoCDHVa3A4NkomYhW+Tsi4oeHO74gA E2rBwBcUBs+9AzHVIQTTKvE19iCpviLrm679kS4iH+6c4CTSl7vimlJ+zgFCpslaDzTS 4r0g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MFy1v1wVjvUgqRaiTS0775vwQNRlDs4xS2BqSkeRRxI=; b=XOK2vUelrdv4QbM/9acwKpOP9OjLT/vO+/d6wFVOCa3Ex2GUufyDRHGZOLdISFw+k3 zRstR6ENQHYKLSTnA8VSCvpRrzfI2NiOwTegmI1AKAYW33CUhy7c1xAYpTqzZTJmjn3B 1b7O1KJU6WZbWGXsE/bVxJsgquSk4xIBrcRbQsnRje+qfUA/Gi13O5foi9euPlEH0ZMl L7/rbmMm6i8JLeDCdlRWr+ofxKWOvoMhHaXSP5+HBCwO4qKk4eY5gMGAH25hNeaE2t4d h6mC+/mJQaXaeLmIp/BtM9GSKF1eSoc4TtRpIhGgkgjWhS6MT3JLyVEJ21DCse7CikFm bZMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533eW1fnlmvO9B9av4ratwbAaP7UsBhF349OCFue3nOgwsLQZhXd 7dnwRzsder7MquzpT8MYBKp1BLrUPSaCDOH2q5OD
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzw55wlMUsfgj4mMGBEWocvs1EG3v3Vc2dHaA4yrapCBJs6YLhbsjVVENjRCFChu3SoMmhnouv4EMCws3zBg8w=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9313:: with SMTP id l19mr10197004ion.150.1591618834430; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 05:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159148015875.11480.2779938750447142779@ietfa.amsl.com> <387D0387-4CAC-4168-8F72-9D180078D67C@apple.com> <CAM4esxQ=6435NCjtxSa83VZEqj8O4wY9o-dcrpSnOmO3-egxNA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriVyCBFjpYV=EnxW94e_qeZEEO5yy6mtU3Yc7zpXy0Bu1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMGpriVyCBFjpYV=EnxW94e_qeZEEO5yy6mtU3Yc7zpXy0Bu1Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kyle Larose <kyle@agilicus.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 08:20:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CACuvLgxC2B-d5KjDboW3WtZ-VAZn3FT+6N+jyj+vG-r08ttd=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, capport-chairs@ietf.org, captive-portals <captive-portals@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-capport-api@ietf.org, Heng Liu <liucougar@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/7e_Eme8lnMh-ZrMORSHP_nCQv6M>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 12:20:38 -0000

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 20:03, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Tommy is correct.  I think the architecture document should add a
> qualifying subclause to clarify that requirement (2) only applies "if
> captive portal enforcement may be active on the given network" or
> something.
>
> The model supports, for example, the very experiment we ran on the
> IETF 106 network [106EXP].  In that experiment we handed out an API
> URI via 7710/7710bis mechanisms to an API that told the client it was
> /not/ captive but that a venue-info-url was available (which led to a
> service that redirected clients to the agenda page, IIRC).
>
> [106EXP] https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org/wiki/CAPPORT

Indeed, this inconsistency was brought up earlier
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/FfPC0M6Plmflg5G92uylDn2stH4/).
There's an issue
(https://github.com/capport-wg/architecture/issues/71) opened against
the architecture regarding it. Let's fix it there by making it
optional.