Re: [Captive-portals] Use Case: "Carrier Grade Captive Portal"

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure we have enough input on whether 511 is useful or not.  There
> seemed to be some suggestion it would help, and some that it wouldn't.
> Perhaps one question we could ask is whether it's harmful?  And if we agree
> it's not harmful, is it worth developing some recommendations for its use?
>
>
In of itself, I don't believe it is harmful. However, if vendors use it as
a reason to continue to terminate TLS connection in order to deliver the
511, then perhaps it is a bit harmful - or at least misleading. As the
world moves to TLS (and QUIC), I think the time for the 511 code has
already passed, to some degree. That, combined with the fact you may still
have browsers not handling that return code properly, I don't see the value
for any vendor or venue to implement this.

> As for the ICMP unreachable option, I certainly don't think it would be
> harmful (with the extra URL bits removed for now).  Is that something we
> wish to progress?
>
>
I will work on a new draft that is only the basics. The additional fields
could always be add in their own draft as extensions.

> Given that we're probably looking at a portal detection method based on
> entirely new work, it seems to me we're free to look at new things like
> utilizing the PVD detection scheme (DNS queries for "provisioning domain
> names", followed by other interaction still TBD).  Have the portal
> implementors reviewed this and given consideration as to whether its
> useful?  (I think of the discovery of the portal and subsequent interaction
> with it as 2 separate processes conducted, obviously, in serial.)
>
>
I believe there are several talking points here, as the PvD method seems to
have several possible implementations.

I think requiring Ipv6 to configure Ipv4 is weird (I believe that was one
proposed method to convey configuration)

Several points I made in the thread "Arguments against any Capport API"
regarding a web service - detached from the NAS - controlling the
UE/station I think are relevant.

If the authors of the PvD concept (re-)present their I-D to the mailing
list, and stick around for discussion, that would be helpful.

> Thoughts?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>
>