Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Martin,

I think the DISCUSS indeed is resolved by the -09 version.

The text now says:

“At minimum, the API MUST provide the state of captivity. Further, the
   API MUST be able to provide a URI for the User Portal.”

That is in line with what the API document provides. It is *able* to provide a URI for a user portal, via the optional user-portal-url key. The API satisfies this requirement, and the requirement does not go as far as saying the value must always be provided—only that it is able to be provided.

Thanks,
Tommy

> On Aug 8, 2020, at 11:58 AM, Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-architecture/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> AFAICT this Discuss still applies to draft-09.
> 
> Sec 2.3  says:
> At minimum, the API MUST provide: (1) the state of captivity and (2) a URI for
> the Captive Portal Server.
> 
> But in section 5 of capport-api, user-portal-url is an optional field.
> 
> Both a capport-api author and a WG chair agreed that the architecture doc
> should be fixed, so I'm moving the DISCUSS here.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I found the terminology around “Captive Portal API server” and “Captive Portal
> Server” to be a little confusing, as these are similar terms. The latter also
> doesn’t get its own discussion in Section 2 and is confusingly called the “web
> portal server” in Figure 1.
> 
> After Figure 1, this seems to be consistently called the “web portal” (sec 2.6
> and 4). In the API doc it is called a "user portal." It would be great to unify
> the terminology across the documents as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals