Re: [Captive-portals] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: (with COMMENT)

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

> -- Section 2.2 ==
> In "should not be provisioned", I would suggest to use the normative "SHOULD".

Good catch. Done.

> == NITS ==
>
> -- Abstract --
> Not all users of a captive portal are 'customers', they can be guests,
> students, employees, ... suggest to use 'users' (and even in the world of IoT).

Agreed.

> -- Section 2 --
> Authors, being English natives, are probably correct but " should not be
> provisioned via IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA options." looks weird to m; why not "
> should be provisioned via neither IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA
>  options." ?

You're right, this text is weird -- and it's my fault.  I've change it
in github [1] to be:

      The maximum length of the URI that can be carried in IPv4 DHCP is 255
      bytes, so URIs longer than 255 bytes SHOULD NOT be provisioned by any of
      the IPv6 options described in this document.

I debated adding a qualifier statement on the end to the effect of: ",
unless it is known that DHCPv4 is never used on this network", but I
did not go that far.

Thanks,
-ek

[1] https://github.com/capport-wg/7710bis/commit/ca984eecdf770dc2a52b7d98e40d93fb61c827fd