Re: [Captive-portals] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-capport-architecture-03.txt

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

no hats...

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018, at 06:14, David Bird wrote:
> I, for one, think "Document that the signaling protocol does not provide
> mechanisms for non-binary blocking." is where IETF tries to become a some
> sort of legal authority...

The IETF describes what consenting protocol participants can do.  So, I'm fairly sure that legal authority has no bearing on this.  However, your point remains a good one.

There are relatively few places where you will find that blocking a per-destination basis doesn't happen at all.  No two networks are the same, and many apply policies that affect how your packets are passed.

Maybe it's a shortcoming in the draft, but recognizing that the intent is to provide an indication of whether access meets common expectations for network access should help.
 
> At this point, I think you might as well remove the entire signaling
> section... It reads like propaganda against signaling as a concept.. then
> later has a entire section on the Nuisance factor of signaling, where it is
> suggested "it may be possible for any user on the Internet to send
> signals"... Hmm..

Personally, I'm comfortable with what is there as a set of requirements.  They aren't that negatively phrased, just narrowly scoped.  I think that a more narrowly targeted version of your ICMP draft would have met these requirements, as would several of the other things we've considered.  I might concede - as some have argued - that the resulting value is so greatly diminished as to not make it worthwhile, but that's the essence of the debate.


> The section titled  "Risk of Nuisance Captive Portal" should really be
> talking about networks that USE the API and have NO network integration
> (e.g. Captive by API only, not by any network enforcement function).

Opened https://github.com/capport-wg/architecture/issues/24

Thanks,
Martin