IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00

Paul Ebersman <list-captive-portals@dragon.net> Mon, 07 March 2016 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <list-captive-portals@dragon.net>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF4A1B433C for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 07:54:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ww0wWXWSZRi2 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 07:54:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.dragon.net (mail.dragon.net [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:36::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B9DF1B4288 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 07:54:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fafnir.remote.dragon.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.dragon.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7A23740943; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 07:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fafnir.remote.dragon.net (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1590733519F0; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:54:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from fafnir.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fafnir.remote.dragon.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1524133519EF; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:54:23 -0500 (EST)
To: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "captive-portals@ietf.org" <captive-portals@ietf.org>
From: Paul Ebersman <list-captive-portals@dragon.net>
In-reply-to: <D3030A8C.12AEFF%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
References: <D2FCEB47.12A6DC%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <CABkgnnV-Nbbt3Mkh-ZOzWig7rJX32SFugkWLnx-t94bA-B__Lw@mail.gmail.com> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830EBCAE6@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com> <D3030A8C.12AEFF%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> message dated "Mon, 07 Mar 2016 15:38:34 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 10:54:23 -0500
Message-Id: <20160307155423.1590733519F0@fafnir.remote.dragon.net>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/cRT63FY2MqcfHjsw7h_X5iSRREk>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 07 Mar 2016 15:54:26 -0000

ddolson> Regarding non-browser clients, even non-HTTP clients, and
ddolson> considering this is the IETF, it seems reasonable to find an
ddolson> IP-layer solution vs. an HTTP-layer solution.

Indeed... All sorts of phone apps don't use HTTP but need to tickle the
reaction.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email