Re: [Captive-portals] I-D Action: draft-ietf-capport-api-00.txt

[David Bird <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Martin,

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:02 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> You asserted (or implied) that a Boolean value was insufficiently
> expressive to convey the range of possible policies that a captive
> network might impose.  I asserted that while that is true, whatever
> you do will be turned into a go/no-go decision by the UE.  This value
> is giving the network provider a direct input to that decision.
>
>
That is exactly right. All it does is make this a network operator decision
(not just input). It doesn't mean the network will actually work as
expected, of course...



> I acknowledge that you might conclude that we're back to gaming this
> out, but I have heard UE vendors say that they really don't want to
> probe.  So if the network says that it's good, I think that they will
> save the probing for when the network breaks instead.  But we'll let
> Tommy and Lorenzo respond.
>

Indeed, we want probing to go away... I am 100% in favor of using the
network (without probing) until the "network breaks instead" -- indeed, why
not use the network resources until it "breaks" either abruptly (dropped
packets, etc) or nicely (with cappport ICMP).  I know... that isn't easy
:-)