Re: [Captive-portals] option 160 conflict

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 03 January 2020 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 80BF512009C for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 11:54:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.279
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 aZF5WljoqSRI for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 11:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 69F691200A3 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 11:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 003Jshu6026869 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:54:45 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1578081286; bh=NHXO3U6ZLQyb35mOnLP6vl4xJpP7lMzM+R2mu3P4exk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=YMrQhKyYfvQ5jHLv7Z0vPJ7VaVo9z83/Gixi4ImN+oy7sSZgZBPJV9FUNXxVqSAra BITiLZlXquyYQch5CF3nT3GQfDUrtuSchAFsKbY5cHvBvfAdkuzM66RP/NHtDfvQwu MxgcxsBudos5mJawBls/hyGOJ6Xw+Y0EjKi3jZlg=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: "captive-portals@ietf.org" <captive-portals@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr2yvqqw=APnyAb=gygR5KK6U7tcx3STGa9e6a8kJYO03w@mail.gmail.com> <150E4F32-236A-4D59-B74C-36BF523DCE55@apple.com> <DM6PR11MB413791A02517F481815C5353CF2E0@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <8B5AF256-342B-4F7C-B5AE-6C3904DFB0DA@apple.com> <CAHw9_iJrtGY=qUFngb=epJuLxrwfryv5peD=wx=2GL-ScV3kFw@mail.gmail.com> <28652.1578070895@localhost>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <1f62bdd4-365b-9526-f4be-1e2b417dab5c@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 13:54:38 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28652.1578070895@localhost>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------5DF8E10D52D246094B709CAB"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/SVBIYdHwNa07FM2rtwzAOBnnaPw>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] option 160 conflict
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, 03 Jan 2020 19:54:56 -0000

[as an individual]

I agree that this seems like an almost magically good solution to the 
conundrum that CAPPORT has, and strongly agree that this is the proper 
solution for this WG.

I am a bit sad that it doesn't scale to future DHCP options that other 
protocols may want to use.

/a

On 1/3/20 11:01 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
>      >> One option we have is to use Code 114, which was reserved for use by
>      >>Apple as a "URL" option. That particular codepoint wasn't ever used, so
>      >>it should be open to be reclaimed as a CAPPORT API URL. Since this is in
>      >>the range below 128, it should be safer to use.
>
>      > I *really* like this idea - the options even contains something that
>      > looks like a URL :-)
>
> I also like it.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>   -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals