IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT

Erik Kline <ek@loon.com> Tue, 14 January 2020 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.com>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4EE12004C for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:07:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=loon.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nhaT2iPUY3OJ for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:07:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc35.google.com (mail-yw1-xc35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04AA9120041 for <Captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:07:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc35.google.com with SMTP id b186so7602711ywc.1 for <Captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:07:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=loon.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=3+8XeWBMS6bbAyCdeOftzSIxDYdmWGt3kLoH2Rq4goY=; b=ORkrpJafhRb4PH96SjxA4s80gcy2yDQcddAIqnypqjUxgIiQkyXseV5a0LAyeSiLUS 35nSvoYqSOf+YX2qaqqJlVn+krnKT21+fZlS3IYd5b9WAsJ2m46vkSgSDkkk7QfEq0dC R2P/oQj2LOMYw8K81S1o5dSQ89FAlUDmeduJc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3+8XeWBMS6bbAyCdeOftzSIxDYdmWGt3kLoH2Rq4goY=; b=K6Hr13GQB49mazdQsddthTwSLj4eQVjJQ/abRdzg6Vyg3+RO5tifvpgAs4hrb29DUs hqDTWyiYJcAIcOPoa9eZG/n32ETbmPc/EGk8ssJCeknilZHCjUJ2OZGqhrP6RaowXFUF nuqPRaRuhBYdttiWOF/Jn0gVnr4T2FDA3HCW7xUNTm6jlbS7tliTH45nXcwop/L1Dr/l kTR2Nqo8ULnzHxtM5EWtxpJkOaG55KEBrUpOnj+Uoe3/jTeLWnSwmTS/eR5SGSZ61oR5 vf8GqqHEc4n7Y0N1fI9vi58Y2ycdoyb/3q8L6pm/oFgOpMl/UuvLjtuwsKgF4spTTqv2 mwUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV0Zut3u9YI/0X7DfD2Tq34mmaWPRwIEgAyNFb3KHFlRXFqIBKn Pa0zHnXxqlADNNXof94kQxqoOO65wyZGolkwNw9Fcw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzkPJF+8r5vNDIe2KfgoVnkLJjHkxizncoVFV/8kPVHw4wMLxMNxNsu3BAnkLf6got/I0Eh6OgaXpo0TLgpUTY=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:1841:: with SMTP id 62mr16139720yby.405.1578960425005; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:07:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKMty=Ks0j6dxPvsDHTpWBCrujihCe7Yzsb4zaV5SkRfh8fx9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKxhTx_uaZVFs4VhM+nro61XxTjPtwZ+pZ_gsJtNQXiNHtf2vQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriX1ct9y53HZ2FtbK00TfVm3uNRFMwYQW0Wb_18XoXjFJw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKMty=KhYr4XfJWzXeBiod1oiyG-qVp7-ANKJaZF1-_nPZhrTw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKMty=KhYr4XfJWzXeBiod1oiyG-qVp7-ANKJaZF1-_nPZhrTw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: ek@loon.com
From: Erik Kline <ek@loon.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:06:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAedzxocTUhQ-z+_Cpz8PhG=o3CR4aZHOGddngiEjZ1HZChP1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Heng Liu <liucougar=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, captive-portals <Captive-portals@ietf.org>, Remi NGUYEN VAN <reminv=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003f8e22059c0e5fea"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/KkRKeEvPqblpVGBmAT1rYyF5kWM>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <captive-portals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/captive-portals/>
List-Post: <mailto:captive-portals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 00:07:10 -0000

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:26, Heng Liu <liucougar=
40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> 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@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email