Re: [Captive-portals] IETF 99 minutes

I don't believe "We shouldn't go there." were my words... We are already
there!

Concerns about net neutrality and 'discriminatory services' is often used
(by the chairs) to raise concerns about ICMP... however, a walled garden
itself is 'discriminatory services' and should we review
Dest-Unreach/Admin-Prohibited or TCP Reset (used today by some NASs when
enforcing walled garden discriminatory services') ?

Yet, I haven't once seen this same concern raised about API methods of
delivering walled garden information.

I agree 100% that this WG does the "work" NOT on the mailing list...
rather, behind closed doors then votes in the in-person meeting...

We need more implementors, deployers, and vendors (specifically the
Guest/Public access business units) to be represented, not just on the
mailing list, but in WG voting and even WG leadership.

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Gunther Nitzsche <gnitzsche@netcologne.de>
wrote:

> Hi
>
> and thanks for the meeting minutes.
>
> I have two (no..three :) small comments on that:
> There is an uncontradicted comment saying:
>
>
> David Dolson: need to
> notify non-http-80
> Tommy Pauly: expect to interact with web pages
> Martin:
> considers status code 511 to be dead until new information.
>
>
> I am wondering why the complete discussion in the last weeks
> regarding  511 - status on this mailing list seems to be completely
> ignored? At least for me it is still the preferred way to go as I mentioned
> earlier here.
>
> And:
>
> Martin: <hat off> Some
> feedback I got was (a) there are far too many bits & messages (maybe dest
> unreach is enough), you allow provider to provide discriminatory services.
> David
> B: That's what walled garden does. We shouldn't go there.
>
>
> ..and I thought, we had the consensus that walled garden
> is a perfect topic for this ml?
>
> Further down:
>
> Tommy: today, we wait for capport
> probe to complete until allowing network access.
>
>
> That is not what we do. Download of antivirus -patterns or
> self- reenabling after abuse block is a valid reason to
> reach parts of the network even when the customer is blocked.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Gunther
>
> On 31.07.2017 03:00, Erik Kline wrote:
> > FYI: I have uploaded the meeting minutes as captured in Etherpad.
> > Many thanks to David Dolson (and any others) for taking notes.
> >
> > You can find the minutes on the wg meetings page:
> >
> >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/capport/meetings/
> >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/minutes/capport
> >
> > and in the wg-materials repo on github:
> >
> >     https://github.com/capport-wg/wg-materials
> >
> > I have not edited this initial upload of the minutes in any way.
> >
> > Please review if/when you get a chance; we can post
> corrections/clarifications.
> >
>
>
>
> NetCologne Systemadministration
> --
> NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH
> Am Coloneum 9 ; 50829 Köln
> Geschäftsführer:
>   Timo von Lepel,
>   Mario Wilhelm
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates:
>   Dr. Andreas Cerbe
>   HRB 25580, AG Köln
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>