IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with DISCUSS)

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 12 June 2020 03:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 30A383A077A; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 20:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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=mnot.net header.b=rN42FBnD; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=XxYaTgOG
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 QOn_jh0KApEQ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 20:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 281B13A0768; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 20:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60565C01D7; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 23:55:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 23:55:54 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=g XdpG+VIMMU7Ebh1Je53FIWoMj6NVA3j/GbAzoatyT4=; b=rN42FBnDfcWwHEKHl 2FkhbCS3/xqGwH9Nc0iHtOOZLmOKr+HGVgi+YEkAxpX3bUJcLs9cxu4ej3f1eCBQ lDGL3QZQMEJafU3klC5d73u2CEDOweRMZLa+40OGXbk3yIBgdZlkIvVTxDs7HXYT w13pGRjef6BiP3LiiP/Xivh/bbNo79Qr28B+agmKbyQiEcitjKy6SO0ClEorGO6V lQV6lfKvxqK5fXlmqRsWWewsq9YMx3TwbxEZMVjoXkphOBBQQ36PMGyzFT3NN7i/ AS9AlC0gUL43h+NhGLkI4p2hFnQgOVv/5iT0fkekSgRe20RRMOJ9SgXm/8EwH3WL hKXZQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=gXdpG+VIMMU7Ebh1Je53FIWoMj6NVA3j/GbAzoaty T4=; b=XxYaTgOGUTCaSZIL9kG7oND86wo3YLuRzHrQG3ksUIxpboe/C5K/iZQgI zW8YmD/zfFOiAKm/BADBrST6WVazwRnarFHPuTkXsfew9zqGNaLR/+I7/QhRlQfS NjePdOcuvCcYuZpHy9cPh92WjP4RHm49BlZh5/lSpYMGnGQDOnvme36kTiYC/s1W WkimN6uC6fIM++sym/jlCefyuS0R3MVkyv3D1IQpA4ocnpSdHLaXS3IkRMLbmSJ+ uN9vEYsfPxIqMGnq9A+P7Oqhi1McPeJeiCFIMFxqq9/g5HkjtPeq5nHP9Y938dCT 8r0pnOE/C4d05rGyr51VWKEijLlsA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:yfziXmkeaZdOFd8RVl_pPx3SwgKTQyXaQSdJC-qX61cLgZ-qc6iJ8Q>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudeitddgjeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeekjeduiefgtddvffeijeejgeelhfffieekuedtheeitdeuveeivefggfeuuefg teenucffohhmrghinhephhhtthhpfedrihhtpdhmnhhothdrnhgvthenucfkphepuddule drudejrdduheekrddvhedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehm rghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:yfziXt1k1kf_cnZmttse3pPacMLKZ4lQrBkjzNHl9TA6k80VLJ0XFg> <xmx:yfziXkrYA8475_47LvmqeZLsQgwtV5EsWra9zMX3f7iWsJ2M3VtNSA> <xmx:yfziXqn_EAFEUUJLciGbMXhVkr-5e9v77I5pQ6OwdAgjxF8wr1QYCg> <xmx:yvziXo-wieI4mfR1wiv5DjNNqt29EyU0-X7gINK18o0rpTg66DCVFA>
Received: from macbook-air.mnot.net (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AF4BE328005A; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 23:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <159188271968.29701.18116271282173494819@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:55:48 +1000
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, capport-chairs@ietf.org, captive-portals@ietf.org, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, draft-ietf-capport-api@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4A75BE73-76B3-47D5-8E1C-0F188CC3916E@mnot.net>
References: <159188271968.29701.18116271282173494819@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/Xab9O1oKdYXX8X4JViOGR2GOi2g>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with DISCUSS)
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, 12 Jun 2020 03:55:58 -0000

Just jumping in here, apologies if I don't have all context:

> On 11 Jun 2020, at 11:38 pm, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> First of all what is the intention of which HTTP version should be supported
> here? And which protocol are the port 443 you are recommending, TCP, UDP or
> SCTP? This also relates to HTTP/3 as it is getting close to being published, we
> can expect that in the future maybe people would like to upgrade to HTTP/3.

It's generally bad practice for an API to specify a version of HTTP.

> Already now I am wondering if the written allow for HTTP/2 over TLS/TCP? Note,
> that I am mostly commenting from the perspective if you want to be specific
> that it is HTTP/1.1. over TLS/TCP that is the goal. Then this document should
> make certain changes in the formulation. If you want to be unspecific and don't
> think that will hurt interoperability, then another formulation that the
> current is also needed.

I think what's desired is to say that the URL accessed must have a HTTPS scheme and a default port, not that communication happen over any specific wire format.

> Likely also a discussion about how a client will figure
> out what versions are supported.

Why would it be different than any other use of HTTP?

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email