Re: [Captive-portals] Requirements for "captive portal closed" notifications

David Bird <dbird@google.com> Wed, 21 March 2018 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dbird@google.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 D2CDC12D7E8 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 yAeqk68br77M for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x233.google.com (mail-it0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::233]) (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 DBB8F129C51 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x233.google.com with SMTP id b136-v6so4978283iti.3 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4EWrPs4umr2rpqz5ygfMGZCppLDmnkTzBzEWzbAHgII=; b=oMqNLMulhbC4tTfUjGzWn8wDOOmelK6XNd+OWmWv1WvP64NAjqeAF0f6aI1k7ky8sT usLsRr8km3QXvCqdMcV3GqC2U/AYSn0QaCKqXqJY2FMRl7J3b9T7gDcg9l/9wfkPuNUw yycN0F41LwHqw1zzY/t73kusegwddHG0RvSH837PWAllgRe9g9Hsk63bvmPVOTHh97WC PcLW1QWkOH866JkTtg7gfRM8VH7dP+EL9FWAD4nul0vcPs3j0PwH6E/jFOnF2ypEt32Q rrrurrp2Blv8oa/8w643pEKOptY/xgqpVClBxjWZbLY1rKhKAN1+ex3uzn5IN8ovM/CF vcxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4EWrPs4umr2rpqz5ygfMGZCppLDmnkTzBzEWzbAHgII=; b=CDtHC4bWAx075exOo//NodgD/Cj5IxYgONSlS2Gb0yGY7wjN0VJ+pICX0QmWdF2N4h v6mQqpA314Qag70svHnTwoRmig4EMe6/B2iOJGDGGCP9w7GlMz6+whZDmYaBm759zkSh 649hzMH8d0DbkIBRDHk19sQns+iXKbmg75VNlNxmgokFMOamdeTxyRHYSpAo0VRIfwE9 RLpOkQ8aR3g92ZBedORqQVHivScfaEIqxHek7Pl4nXuIwDKfxKm17E+azgBvCrvUNsOV FxXfrj4BFUz5Tl37NTjS50KyqV1+ZuWHVm7V18G2/Ewj7YLALI42ecR0c425nwgUXWKU smbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FgHLzwP6LoSL11eJcW3m+xQylUi1n4PZgdO42D2vGHsfc2rCDv UUqcbKdDxWAke0/dSOd8mhuN3M22iaCqb4INRMwh1Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsXwrFJj84UYqKkWTHapQxABb2Z0ifWRpZi7h105ba3JoAUBUvgznNjdd1qfub/0qGKxQ+DblAKdU30ZlQFeI0=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:21cd:: with SMTP id e196-v6mr2221139ita.49.1521599011793; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKD1Yr3rP24jQ6sMpoXZ3pU02FmvwDNc9=w2oAh4bMWZmEtQ_A@mail.gmail.com> <CADo9JyXpW-rn81kwOkqx8+=iBMTWd+x1FoMm-YTCm+Efmb23gQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0oDZQJQ1n899Vtm1VPwwV2ZaLZTJV19a35G6pHf0x1Dg@mail.gmail.com> <CADo9JyUWawp5FC8q=0KJMk8T4x-iyFjpj167UH_NPjT=b2Hn+A@mail.gmail.com> <aa5ea1b06f9bb7981552f689ef8742d9cae9b2e3.camel@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <aa5ea1b06f9bb7981552f689ef8742d9cae9b2e3.camel@laposte.net>
From: David Bird <dbird@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 02:23:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CADo9JyXDmkpGe_0ZoP9Ku0da37Xa+aUz02YLg1J5FvBXACEF6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, captive-portals@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009738380567e2e08c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/ZakRERDu6QtL3O2-KGp8rg9VoHE>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Requirements for "captive portal closed" notifications
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 02:23:35 -0000

Thanks Nicolas. Perhaps there is more consensus in the broader group after
all...

There is a very long-tail in purposes for captive portals. The IETF can't
police which are "bad" vs. "good" business models. Let laws do that.


On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:11 PM Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
wrote:

> Le mardi 20 mars 2018 à 09:07 -0700, David Bird a écrit :
> >
> > > > > 3. The notification should not be on a per-destination basis. A
> > > > > hint that conveys the information "you can reach facebook, but
> > > > > to reach CNN you need to upgrade to another service plan" is not
> > > > > technically infeasible but is unlikely ever to reach WG and IETF
> > > > > consensus and therefore I think we should not spend our time
> > > > > talking about it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can't a network have this policy irrespective of how we implement
> > > > ICMP? Can't they even today just use existing ICMP messages? I
> > > > cringe when we start dictating how PUBLIC ACCESS networks manage
> > > > their walled garden and businesses.
> > > >
> > >
> > > My point was that there's no use in having that discussion, because
> > > we know there are strong opinions on both sides and thus we're not
> > > likely to get consensus.
> >
> >
> > My point is that you are the one *making* this a discussion not likely
> > to get consensus by loading the question with statements like "you can
> > reach facebook, but to reach CNN you need to upgrade to another
> > service plan" ...  which isn't a problem with ICMP per se, rather how
> > you don't like how some public access networks operate...
>
> Yes, this is a strawman scenario. Entities that sell plans sell will
> just parcel out bandwidth for stuff you haven’t paid for, they don’t
> need such a mechanism, the entities that need it are networks where some
> accesses are restricted for work or legal reasons.
>
> Most walled gardens will want something like 'free access to
> pr.institutionalsite.com/intranet.mybusiness.net/library.school.com',
> downloading gigs of videos from youtube requires autorisation,
> sex.xxx.com, playingatwork.net and examsolutions.cheater.org are
> forbidden.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Mailhot
>