IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Mon, 15 June 2020 00:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
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 6BB7C3A07D8 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 17:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=a+qr28YK; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=naHdD3ad
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 Dfbb4Lxz07gr for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 17:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 344ED3A07D5 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 17:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1996357 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 20:18:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 14 Jun 2020 20:18:04 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=5NhLj30DjpmQW+qx5idM8cYg2oYLuip 2SGnZ1ELlu1U=; b=a+qr28YKWsEkV6KrKmTlXG2bmARCv1Ba/ZHglKVDuhL11Xa spjkwY1KY7184+CzzX5QkFvv51IXBPzEjs+7tRbb/5qvkjl8n6sd0U6qU5luWDmC BrkBCCfxl/AtLM7saEnJPpo3am2dYyi1liXmdJkSNrZNgs0HPJs0Ayye75ZtyMA7 Q9sq5+17FZCq3Oc2MeQxJv+YAyXDJjOHRI7ahDA5/haVsPRhtETH7LX0lHGB2fzY ZovTCR0kbDTPzQsNXBnTDf7vPO9sUUc+kjKr31gilKYx0cQ0iPTKCvoUFwN+pV53 eo2LyFVj/HlGGNnZe/UENYE9h4ov7fJ1dg/iAIQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=5NhLj3 0DjpmQW+qx5idM8cYg2oYLuip2SGnZ1ELlu1U=; b=naHdD3ad4qJmGzm5Ni1NyP 8tyxs2RGrEmvjCLOnbwEhWcqRlyBZ83AkweURb9ECNaiupQkUR2TgxJz5gLSvBJn g9Hny/gqU/CpLgivtoyDblIkL3OAdTdCiOQ2kNN6pZdSGcOLKt3PDiMfKujX2+Qc PNcC8Yot6lJ/BOReNyal1RqCbqvIoJUQM7mYOhl+rnuiPOnKO6s0QB2jXcOSklxP V20kqzlWqAWl+mlAPcWp8J1zztZ1EZUD3zX9MqSm22JShex91FhmKAYfgc2pI/DG xd1NnagoWqv4V3htJwVGIdOtOThE2n0AlqjYZNymXvkaBT50PHNciEcxqZRKrc/A ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:PL7mXnt3AxbIA4ggwcBQB6WQSBX8SSmnjFUH4aG6y81LWu4vmUXieQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudeijedgfeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeejueffveeigfeuvdfhte fhueekjeeukeeftdeifeevvedutdekvdeigeefhfffteenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhh uhgsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:PL7mXod9LJSUQfLfW1LTKysREw8o2ZkVq7gqgr4WtiLIBEXxN1nj3A> <xmx:PL7mXqwUjdGwMYVg6GB_EL57NXmfnXBZWeC2r7Z-FY20pYww7MZWXw> <xmx:PL7mXmPBF3XUC73nstPuDSyUPlg9HWMvDXT_8OXhZBg4sidqi3yKMw> <xmx:PL7mXlc_iOTSqFW8-01j3IgAOXBDxJT0EsgHa9QPoKQgm93uhJ9LMQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1299EE00A8; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 20:18:04 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-525-ge8fa799-fm-20200609.001-ge8fa7990
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <6dcec6a7-b30e-47d8-acb8-a87fd1c04fa3@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACuvLgwpBWSB38=4q_Dh6M_FAhqknGe8YAQ2rGsvC-gcY9Yk+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <159168063615.8302.17239207964322081612@ietfa.amsl.com> <CACuvLgzq5Nb5FmnMDQUrSPZtObz-2n84xBduMkiHGmkWmo__JQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200613005041.GU11992@kduck.mit.edu> <CACuvLgwpBWSB38=4q_Dh6M_FAhqknGe8YAQ2rGsvC-gcY9Yk+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:17:42 +1000
From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: captive-portals@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/fvKonwKqVHqC_YBWodTyaeS7zGA>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 15 Jun 2020 00:18:07 -0000

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, at 02:13, Kyle Larose wrote:
> Tommy raised an objection in the issue
> (https://github.com/capport-wg/architecture/issues/95) I submitted on
> github for this. Initially,
> I said that the API URI should be unguessable. I conflated the two
> types of URI when I
> wrote my initial reply. To clarify, I'm now planning only suggesting
> that the user portal URI
> be unguessable.

The API URI being unguessable isn't really a worthwhile goal if every device that connects to the network will be handed the same value via RA.  Tommy's objection seems reasonable.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email