IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 08 March 2016 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788561CD75C for <captive-portals@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 17:24:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.41]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Ou8ScmdY52z for <captive-portals@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 17:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A84221CD759 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 17:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5643C509B5; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:24:30 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830EBCAE6@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:24:27 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <18C84D29-4E74-463D-B617-5CF25E9DCE7A@mnot.net>
References: <D2FCEB47.12A6DC%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <CABkgnnV-Nbbt3Mkh-ZOzWig7rJX32SFugkWLnx-t94bA-B__Lw@mail.gmail.com> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830EBCAE6@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com>
To: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/O2R53_C1nnxRf-7B1cZtx53t21s>
Cc: "captive-portals@ietf.org" <captive-portals@ietf.org>, "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 08 Mar 2016 01:24:34 -0000

On 8 Mar 2016, at 2:08 AM, Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com> wrote:
> 
> Regarding non-browser clients, even non-HTTP clients, and considering
> this is the IETF, it seems reasonable to find an IP-layer solution vs. 
> an HTTP-layer solution.

Making the presence of a CP clear to non-HTTP clients seems like a good thing. Doing much more than that (e.g., presenting something to the user, getting their credentials) is less attractive.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email