IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] A view from a WiFi provider on captive portal requirements, challenges and improvements

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 02:05 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 4F95F126C2F for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 3MA7zdVDniwl for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (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 796601200DF for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id j9so4624490ywj.3 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kClKsNL/Y/M/IEqR30Sr4sA2ww01sIzCeh1nE4SxwYI=; b=JkjviDhfj8t5ydv4TRGLmD+4sDx/ShDsdblfmhrcXpm5fajwZGKQ8Hh9UFl2DwyAhd tdCHPPA1g0EQIFs+ML8T6aFg147lql1PCcegMVSMt0PJXB1IbmcH7myxWeo8oZ+XmncQ zUG3XrLxOKiYxN3RpD8bBeHw4AQCxznhOJtNC4Y6UuzYDGXCBKMsrq+xwhcmH4u7z0xR PynnJZ2V6JA8JXqImj/x9XQcjnrSWSJMBMc1435PoOWD4SZSZdfef3x9tcTVCwMSjg8m VKqAQ/IlDWkp5wW/VzfOH6nqJRzHcMZZLPyG09uS+TJ3Fcg3VH0jMSnuoxpdu1oRsfZR M/bQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kClKsNL/Y/M/IEqR30Sr4sA2ww01sIzCeh1nE4SxwYI=; b=jOttyW4YUOSAtWMhnhnHYSS5CZt/C6JFGb0YcQWhQ/Clk4OCCvozy/wQtgeEYmZTd8 kJx1O/hm2s9kY79wjvzl4aB2sjS0u4Dd/pSaJzzf5TeWCX8eQYyeuNuElm/kYQrj95C0 25t+4c7Favnin9cVDO8JhdBaZLzm55vUMjRrCyCvOYyjw4j22dxmI6nPIsWsxUVDkO0j 89FIut8EryEabpyBi3028/GCBR1cVTUZJs4yYSB0bZ/F0VUEpu+MKekx2lUVOQ/par6/ 5XqCureMggz77bB05mdQUjFoc4IpMyZnWxF/IXRQALLCQc2Ir6iqVnAZBqM5AyqdPa4f +dJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4xOJD5XFV23ajRNO9PANmefeNRxUtXG1zb/0GxubY3nigmWk9p 7K2DJBYRbyBkMVU8NqMq3DP4lPXW3ec8
X-Received: by 10.13.242.198 with SMTP id b189mr305872ywf.243.1492567553350; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.105.84 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98705A0136@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com>
References: <026901d2b857$7c091040$741b30c0$@purplewifi.com> <CADo9JyUr1NFnLRa5Sw4LBPuW9D7r5QWT2wnCY8xbkLQ_uwa-_g@mail.gmail.com> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98705A0136@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:05:32 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxpxUNHNXZUj3O6+8pimYD+81JzayjLaeZr-ohpGQ-cPmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
Cc: David Bird <dbird@google.com>, James Wood <james.wood@purplewifi.com>, "captive-portals@ietf.org" <captive-portals@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="94eb2c0356ecdb4488054d7b763e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/R9PdymwmFSu5IZ5ZF0lHRgYA74Q>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] A view from a WiFi provider on captive portal requirements, challenges and improvements
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:05:56 -0000

On 19 April 2017 at 02:18, Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com> wrote:

> Regarding the AP/client identification, this is the reason I suggested in
> an earlier email,
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/
> RPwEIuLlW6ZSLmEyaqfxgDrF88Q
>
>
>
> "
>
> Posting to the create_href:
>
> POST http://<server>/capport/sessions (Accept: application/json)
>
> { "identity": "<USERNAME>"}
>
>
>
> …
>
> The USERNAME could be DHCP option-12 value or MAC address or ?
>
> "
>
>
>
> I didn’t know exactly what this identity should be. Maybe multiple
> identity options are useful.
>

Or an https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7542 style Network Access Identifier.

This may be straying too far into solutioneering too soon, but one outcome
of a captive portal login/auth process might be the negotiation of an NAI
for the UE to present in future session interactions (renewal and
reattachment).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email