Re: [Captive-portals] Last Call: <draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08.txt> (CAPPORT Architecture) to Informational RFC

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 11 May 2020 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 7DCEA3A0B1A for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 12:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.088
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=elandsys.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 7fsPLtYbWtzM for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34B63A0B19 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 12:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.103.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 04BJPGfd019027 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 12:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1589225127; x=1589311527; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Awi4Jy/xl90ei6pTyM1c19S3OvEts+tIJihKYqv5QWg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=G9/P9T4W8tzhtqrs2rJovTj+I4paVPWDN8iSzo9alXep+BBUvMMfqxtjLXLbQ+Jci Cj9rehNwop/5lAZgb0nKFwoBxaQnn5A6gXGY0PboIVP/oYUHD4rCFZ+g/4lrtPKeKa h/eW+22SbCAJYSgwmCmFlkqTpBr+8X+yZcA6HfMM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200511115806.10209988@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 12:24:19 -0700
To: captive-portals@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <158921606984.25307.13122538106790691765@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <158921606984.25307.13122538106790691765@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/_eKcGHUskHO6Zsz7e6j4dcWlsfs>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Last Call: <draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08.txt> (CAPPORT Architecture) to Informational RFC
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: Mon, 11 May 2020 19:25:40 -0000

Hello,
At 09:54 AM 11-05-2020, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Captive Portal Interaction WG
>(capport) to consider the following document: - 'CAPPORT Architecture'
>   <draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08.txt> as Informational RFC
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
>comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

I took a quick look at the draft.  The third paragraph in the 
Introduction section states that the document standardizes an 
architecture for implementing captive portals.  Does it  meant that 
this draft is intended to be a standard?

The principles listed to guide the architecture looks more like 
requirements.  Anyone who has been at an airport understands that 
existing protocols are being intercepted, forged, broken, etc. to get 
to reach the user to go through the "captive" experience.  The 
"SHOULD NOT" (why are the words in uppercase?) comes out as a 
principle that "one should follow the existing standards".

What are there "MAY" principles?

This document is about the architecture.  Where does it provide for 
incremental migration?

On reading further, I would say that the draft is a mix of 
requirements and "solution" instead of a draft about architecture.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy