Re: [Captive-portals] WGLC on draft-ietf-capport-architecture and ...-api

Kyle Larose <> Mon, 30 March 2020 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDCA3A14E3 for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WesUN_4EE20u for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0E673A14D9 for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b12so1243079ion.8 for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vEx9/zyjIPsnwl8U9vVVAyWonpqjfYKqOEhIoVd+Hi0=; b=GpQB5khaOKapWiuxDwaom4Un0+l3qh11hAQ4DvcZf1cuLtML3HZ/7eiGci80qwARs+ fGsAjOdo4fSlwortZZpNEcA9Y2Nn/swhTqtmhzhom34D4RtqHbfVKKeEegr5FfHZ1fcK 8UWxFfURD1rFsQCyJ2mt7bbmccVgLbg6kkOVbiq2u96/Y8Ar9mydasPTk7pqxJLNPx5W XGw6qxYNX0VvJGCUEBuuw1DnVjMTHZdr+xF08AfLTViM8g/YyWDZFsz9zU6LPg6or85C bqoe96ScllWUGBOWtmtJwGOiLD3VU3TTKPPfeNaaQJSQ8TAYGTbgIrbTq0oN6SjtEVu5 9LNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vEx9/zyjIPsnwl8U9vVVAyWonpqjfYKqOEhIoVd+Hi0=; b=ZwksUEW3ieFLgwfZymKBICaKXemGAW7vM2bQmdHLZFdxIORsG2HNp4OOqxterlhAWR Dyu+028BIgJOQ8wDyUwS84z+O9O7kKdiGPAHP/egDzA732biEvCGjE/T99v0ircrH008 1Fl2ApxsLZGFW69PccNJVyOhjufxBzmhBB7gT8ObOXF51xpYdautFChSRz0hITjpwcTr MCG1vFhNf90JwZCdXiTRZb1Ex0REesCio4MvrehGjIIRNr5MmKXz260Az7FiN/dX/rLb cf7fLzR4wsLYOMZvLY8RH6cyTXJUZfzXmXaJg9TSLq6/NjA+Fey2zatJN07w/nTBpc+t /+CQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0OGcZ5E/6k9kavzKteoWK4QpqPZrFrZssF7lYlJvpE5S2cc9aG 7BNk9TA7o9zEUFOahnuvc3cT6O4d+593EkdAvq8U
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvovPsHlV6wlG/9FR5uRacnB9LZbqcxPvu/R/WBA0ZcCl7m1qzvARYlwAeW5JYtluiz5l4pwKWIb6KFF24tvuI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:2541:: with SMTP id j1mr10461431ioe.37.1585570744012; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Kyle Larose <>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:18:53 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Gurshabad Grover <>
Cc: Martin Thomson <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] WGLC on draft-ietf-capport-architecture and ...-api
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:19:07 -0000

Thanks for the feedback and PR Gurshabad!

I've replied to Martin's reply regarding the signal section.

As for the privacy considerations, it's probably a good idea. Did you
have some suggestions for content?



On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 22:52, Gurshabad Grover <> wrote:
> On 3/5/20 12:25 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:> This starts a joint working
> group last call on these documents. Please respond this mail with your
> views regarding the suitability of these documents for publication (as
> Informational RFC and Proposed Standard RFC respectively) before 2020-03-23.
> >
> Thanks for all the great work, authors and editors! I have reviewed
> capport-architecture, and I support its publication as an RFC. Some
> comments below.
> On capport signal
> -----------------
> The Captive Portal Signal section (2.5) was a bit confusing to me.
> Is 'signal' only meant to be binary information, i.e. whether traffic is
> restricted or not? (pt. 3 in the section) If yes, the inclusion of a
> 'pending expiry' notification in the same section seems contradictory.
> (It also assumes that some information is available since "On receipt of
> preemptive notification, the User Equipment can prompt the user to
> refresh.")
> I think the clearest explanation of it is offered in the Security
> Considerations rather than the section itself, i.e. the signal should
> not carry any information at all, that it just acts as a prompt for the
> User Equipment to contact the API. (This explanation makes other things
> fall in line as well: the 'pending expiry' notification is just a
> timed-signal that is no different from any other except for when it was
> triggered.)
> I would suggest rephrasing sentences in the Captive Portals section to
> make them as clear as the security considerations text. If my
> understanding is correct, please let me know and I'm happy to submit a
> PR to this effect.
> Pull request
> ------------
> I have submitted a pull request with some editorial suggestions; happy
> to elaborate on them if the motivation is not clear from the changes.
> <>
> Privacy considerations
> ----------------------
> Since we're dealing with unique identifiers and traffic information,
> would love to hear people's thoughts on whether a brief privacy
> considerations section would be useful. If yes, happy to help with that.
> Thank you.
> -Gurshabad
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list