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

[Kyle Larose <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the review!

Responses inline

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

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.

Thanks!

Kyle