Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: (with COMMENT)

Kyle Larose <> Mon, 08 June 2020 12:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFAB13A0A14 for <>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 05:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8BDitLORfVVx for <>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 05:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2D683A03F6 for <>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 05:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t8so16443809ilm.7 for <>; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 05:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JoERWQrZ5SHUbVJlDXPIBDQTWpf0yfOVtZ4QEq+3f/Y=; b=aFYt6QstiJM8aHCLenrY9iEeqQ5pzXQGSUsx9VqdN5V4icZK5uiWKewFK5Hkr6eQx5 A1ic8WbdqFrZeiwe2M8TPH52OXx5OFTpVDdCk4WDkzXJYgyem1WJl6HPjeYQCxBhc2tk 7KzLb/PmIcxqFExEGLOdsQSxJRPrQJmxE9Jo7oVzpcXYXTijErq9Fj1khJpfnAeNHdPi iuMli0BDUod7+uePRJzMHjfjElTkBFigZyE5/cZT09zeDOnAiDzekQnZvp8auuOF1CtK jA0ovgdoQ71WCEy1OS3dehWfEsgVyK1NplzKu0mBtC6Q40I+5Cr3x3CBOfk4ac6LpQT7 aXXg==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JoERWQrZ5SHUbVJlDXPIBDQTWpf0yfOVtZ4QEq+3f/Y=; b=AN30FVmmKrZXmsgslZMtTZRYTGJ4g2bLB9GNePwWts6rTwm7VYNvGLwmGhaRVVqRwL W8wWyGz9gys1/jAOzq51rvZQn4sc0sMBOUZ14eDbIQprhKOfgy5CqsI7F6R+Cg2sgKIY mVk5hMZYGE0vZqOw51SwcQ7tGuPuFrNELsutq5VwXjBYXv8z006ycXYT5LGP6GtX6Pzo vCOrjac0YmlDoda/slkf5mVatGYM98/Zyah0OPl0M4iho1tKBl6AhQq8dZeXW73YTztq Sji/ddVHGZT19D3jumZ+fzTA+WpeoqImXQbOY7AE7Wn001pDdo3CHrLG8QLVRRWcQCOg P/5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5309G14Ac1cQzIP9SWiM5d0Q7zpyM5P8odVroPOVuIP8hmbOk0h9 kz0hJ/S54pwqOE/yiYvMpG1QcIEYQy4B+pGajunk
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxupSIpKv/w/PPbesHtWHbRLFFUzYhYRIZMB5+eO/bbKv2UcldJTUmk7xSyuJF6ogruWICm/mtbCWrsExVNrtw=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:2a0c:: with SMTP id r12mr21000837ile.275.1591617917613; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 05:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Kyle Larose <>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 08:05:06 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Martin Duke <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,, Martin Thomson <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: (with COMMENT)
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: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 12:05:21 -0000

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the review!

Responses inline

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 01:49, Martin Duke via Datatracker
<> wrote:
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: No Objection

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I found the terminology around “Captive Portal API server” and “Captive Portal
> Server” to be a little confusing, as these are similar terms. The latter also
> doesn’t get its own discussion in Section 2 and is confusingly called the “web
> portal server” in Figure 1.

The Captive Portal API Server is the server hosting the Captive Portal
API. The Captive Portal Server is the server hosting the page(s) used
to communicate with the user visually via some form of client.

I think, given your comments in the API review, and of the other
working group members who commented there, that we should use Tommy's
suggestion of "User Portal" in place of Captive Portal Server. That
should hopefully remove any confusion caused by the similarity between
the two terms.

> After Figure 1, this seems to be consistently called the “web portal” (sec 2.6
> and 4). It would be great to unify the terminology across the document as a
> whole.

I agree. That's a mistake; the document should be consistent. We'll fix that up.