IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] captive portal browser capabilities

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 18 January 2019 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 2F13E1313AC for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:32:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 eQzcj7NOAsvn for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC4981313B4 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:32:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2428C380BE; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 15:31:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id C8F6C2697; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 15:32:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79B815CD; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 15:32:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ek@loon.co
cc: captive-portals <captive-portals@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxpTtM1r1Gpgd=sno2M+57fbfzjMfrbyHNBH8Ni13Ku9+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26273.1547831492@localhost> <CAAedzxpTtM1r1Gpgd=sno2M+57fbfzjMfrbyHNBH8Ni13Ku9+g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 15:32:35 -0500
Message-ID: <5483.1547843555@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/SDAZRJ1hN_AcHxRi6XORZwh2Soo>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] captive portal browser capabilities
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: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:32:43 -0000

Erik Kline <ek@loon.co> wrote:
    >> I will not be surprised if there is nothing that satisfies my needs
    >> and is still capable of dealing with portals.

    > Can you clarify what "dealing with" means here for you?

    > Automatically interacting with a portal? (e.g. clicking agreement
    > checkboxes, filling in email addresses or facebook details, ...)

That would be be awesome, but until we are widely successful, it isn't going
to happen, so it's really, as you guessed:

    > Detecting the presence of a portal and then "calling a human for
    > help"?  (vis. your Chrome X11 forwarding idea)

Calling human for help.
The connectivity is not for long durations of time.

The initial purpose of this box is to bring IPv6 uplink into a wired testing
environment, and act as the "ISP" link for other devices.
[Some of which will be captive portals under test... :-)]

But, you didn't comment on my real query:

> So it occurs to me that maybe a document that establishes a reasonable
> subset of capabilities would be a good thing to have.  Then at least, both
> portal makers and captive portal browser providers could have something to
> work towards.

> Maybe this is really W3C work?



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email