Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT

Remi NGUYEN VAN <> Fri, 17 January 2020 07:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09601201AA for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 23:25:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lyNoeotAJMFZ for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 23:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05C5812007A for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 23:25:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z193so24931707iof.1 for <>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 23:25:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Vgd6plOVE/stSGY9vCr7hEJ7FO24gtwcM9SF6twBuj4=; b=DVuowJJih3BrlmtPs9/d0hDHKRQVqVMe6YrEOKAKlqr7b3iDQUXO/IL7qdBZi97YKV htgrT31udG3TDx1Q9iOD2m2pvHsH+zBhaubId+puthGsst4MKDEErqUnVxAHdRhQaONt mc0U342ozeiqGVkjWPDYDxkhFsYoR3rXGFW5/LSF5xyH4y1i1jS8PIQF9iAS02JbNiGs GB964LFBq9PCm+7iZu4C7j9rpEI98oliLlxMztUROVgAZZc4iHYO9/bp3vEL8Vtqfhs6 2SM6Jk6ISXKMvXMlxeGGfhdewfFDpzr+sLxi0/CFr2TwM76i6ctYd24ru9+q8Zp+YenX O5JQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Vgd6plOVE/stSGY9vCr7hEJ7FO24gtwcM9SF6twBuj4=; b=qo5gF+gROSvPGL83hFzJDCSwRPaG5kkx0nQt0szqILEby6ez/49M2PEoM1vgg27Khg lcv5Mpv3BB0HmxBuA+JQ6YgPoYzO8NAvcPzIpUnPrvoP3KqOEz/ttfk5Lf9E8qhHnPE2 9G2BaB8TW1ZxHY8rp7STruexddJNjuVybBzk6sX0qlE/zCRe1EV4Geh/agyHCoR4wH3/ NOQc2TZG2QajkKrO/IMpg5skUBJUZN0h1BgenLP8f27IPErNX71rVyIqv+k7v3NC54Bx tFyMRV2cIMZhNJ2EPpBafOf5xHrfnfLVdI4oRFbuATv+f1QKIB9e1Z5uiv00he9a89f7 sQOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW2HoUDH6P9rwwu4ZvcVawkBpNrgk7amNmNfrCcp5qjbxI9uYtC UTnHyZy3hPk70XZSKTO8Oj6oLJvIUycDgb7JTp/0SQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyj90PjPGoEFSkOURU2887jf6905rZsh6eWqkBV7HdVY0VeLYvy/TCFpdoTeMUG6at3tDXQxlUJAnThIQwh0ok=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9ed4:: with SMTP id a20mr19529305ioe.187.1579245914086; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 23:25:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Remi NGUYEN VAN <>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:25:03 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Erik Kline <>
Cc: Heng Liu <>, Tommy Pauly <>, Erik Kline <>, captive-portals <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="000000000000bffb79059c50d7ee"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 07:25:20 -0000

As far as the Android implementation is concerned, I think it would be nice
to have capport API support in the next (android R) version; however due to
deadlines, it's going to be harder for me to change the attributes read
from the API very soon.
Following this discussion my current plan is to support an optional
"remediation-supported" boolean, and only prompt users to extend their
session shortly before it expires when it is set to true. Hopefully the
boolean can be added to the current draft or in a future, separate draft
considering that we seem to roughly agree on it, but if the group
eventually realizes that it wants to go in another direction, we'll update
behavior in subsequent releases.

Does that make sense ?



On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:30 AM Erik Kline <> wrote:

> If there's working group consensus to add it to the current API draft then
> definitely add it.  Otherwise, probably a separate document that would need
> a call for wg adoption.
> Separately, and hopefully without starting a massive bikeshed, is there a
> more apt word than "remediation"?  I think this specific word carries the
> connotation of "fixing an error" or "correcting damage" and it seems like
> the use here would be broader.  But perhaps I'm completely mistaken.
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:21, Heng Liu <> wrote:
>> It seems most are comfortable with adding a remediation-capable boolean,
>> which is simpler than another url while also making it explicit on whether
>> remediation is provided or not, so UE could display different notifications.
>> Anyone have any objections on adding this boolean please?
>> If not, what's the next step on moving this forward please?
>> Thanks,
>> Heng
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:38 PM Tommy Pauly <> wrote:
>>> Any captive portal that is newly adopting the CAPPORT API will hopefully
>>> be testing the setup in the new model, and will have to think about which
>>> URLs to map to different user experiences.
>>> A page that only says "you're logged in!", and has no way of adding more
>>> time, etc, is in my opinion a relatively useless page. If we provide a
>>> separate URL for remediation, it would seem to encourage such a design. Not
>>> including this would hopefully urge the portal design to a cleaner model.
>>> I do think the boolean is nice for highlighting to the captive portal
>>> deployer that they should think about remediation. I'd be more ok with that
>>> model, although it could also be an extension as we gain experience in
>>> deployment.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tommy
>>> On Jan 13, 2020, at 6:00 PM, Remi NGUYEN VAN <
>>>> wrote:
>>> If we show prompts to the user shortly before the session expires, we'd
>>> like to make sure that we can redirect them to some page where they can fix
>>> the problem, instead of landing on a page saying "you're logged in". The
>>> user-portal-url would work fine with a remediation-supported boolean for
>>> that purpose; having a separate URL gives additional flexibility to the
>>> access point operator, but from the point of view of the client I think
>>> both are fine.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Remi
>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:02 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=
>>>> wrote:
>>>> I have a similar initial reaction to Erik's. Adding another URL that
>>>> effectively is just another user portal, but meant to be used at certain
>>>> times, adds a lot of complexity. I'm certainly not ruling out adding such a
>>>> key as need arises, but I'd hesitate to make it part of the initial set.
>>>> Particularly, if we start seeing the "venue URL" be the main landing
>>>> page we redirect people to once they're logged it, it kind of makes sense
>>>> to let the user portal be the status/remediation/payment page.
>>>> Tommy
>>>> On Jan 13, 2020, at 4:06 PM, Erik Kline <> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:26, Heng Liu <liucougar=
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Erik Kline <> wrote:
>>>>>> Why should this different from the user-portal-url?  It seems to me
>>>>>> that either the user-portal-url would remediation UI elements or it
>>>>>> wouldn't.
>>>>> Some CP vendors want to specify a different URL specifically tailored
>>>>> for remediation of a session. By providing a 3rd URL, we can accommodate
>>>>> this use case..
>>>> If the remediation URL is available but the user (somehow) navigates to
>>>> the user-portal-url, what do they see?
>>>>>> With this 3rd URL, if the bytes/time does expire should the OS try to
>>>>>> launch an interaction the remediation URL and then fallback to the user URL
>>>>>> if it failed to load?  In which case, why not just leave all interaction
>>>>>> with the user-portal-url?
>>>>> if a remediation URL is present, and if it fails to load for whatever
>>>>> reason, no need to fallback to user portal URL: CP vendor should make sure
>>>>> the remediation URL is working properly (this is similar to user-portal url
>>>>> should work properly, if not, there is no other way for user to clear a CP)
>>>> I guess I'm just trying to be mindful of one person's flexibility is
>>>> another person's complexity..  I think this just doubles the number of URLs
>>>> that the CP vendor needs to make sure function correctly.
>>>> If the vendor doesn't implement a means to extend your session without
>>>>>> completely shutting everything down and forcing to the user to restart the
>>>>>> interaction flow anew, I could see that an OS would not want to bother the
>>>>>> user with an interaction where they couldn't actually do anything useful.
>>>>>> But that might suggest a boolean capability, rather than a new URL
>>>>>> (remediation-supported={true|false})?
>>>>> A boolean field could also be a positive signal to notify UE that
>>>>> remediation is possible, but this would prevent CP vendors from using
>>>>> different URLs for remediation.
>>>>> (As mentioned in the initial thread, this URL approach is also taken
>>>>> by the Passpoint release 2.0 spec to signal remediation process.)
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Heng
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Captive-portals mailing list
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Captive-portals mailing list