Re: [Captive-portals] A final check on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09

These cases, along with the very common case of a router that is on-premises and sits between an ISP and a local network, were discussed, but I don't recall ever reaching a conclusion.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020, at 15:28, Erik Kline wrote:
> One thing I realized that we didn't discuss in 7710bis, and didn't 
> really discuss here either, is the issue of devices attached to routers 
> which are themselves on the link with the provisioning service.
> 
> Such clients would not have a way to receive an RA option nor any of 
> the DHCP options since we didn't say what routers that observe these on 
> a network should do (e.g. routers should/may include verbatim the 
> 7710bis options in any of the applicable mechanisms for downstream 
> clients).
> 
> The section 2.5 captive portal signal might be able to come to the 
> rescue here, but as we don't have such a thing.
> 
> But...maybe that's a separate document? 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 5:11 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> > The editors of draft-ietf-capport-architecture have put in a huge amount of work over the past few weeks in addressing the review comments.
> > 
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09
> > 
> > As there have been quite a few changes, I would like to request that people take a brief look again before we proceed.  I've been watching closely, and the changes look good, but I would like to confirm.  The changes are:
> > 
> > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09.txt
> > 
> > Please send comments before 2020-08-16.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Captive-portals mailing list
> > Captive-portals@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>