IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: (with COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Mon, 01 June 2020 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 9AF5A3A138B; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.957
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 G6mCVABwV7J4; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (desktop4.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 737B23A137F; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5AE38A49; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id zKJz7V59dLHB; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:39:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312AD38A2B; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:39:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8946FFFF; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:41:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, capport-chairs@ietf.org, captive-portals@ietf.org, draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis@ietf.org, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
In-Reply-To: <159099228225.24766.4112668923511907983@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <159099228225.24766.4112668923511907983@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 13:41:37 -0400
Message-ID: <9405.1591033297@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/g8t--SiU7grw70Sf6YXwukUlZ7w>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: (with 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, 01 Jun 2020 17:41:55 -0000

Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    > In Section 2, paragraph 2, it says the operator "SHOULD ensure that the URIs
    > provisioned by each method are equivalent".  Does "equivalent" here mean
    > "identical", or just "synonymous"?

{speaking as a WG member}

synonymous, I think that we are not insisting that each method have identical
names, because there might be different connectivity to each. Imagine:
       "ipv6.portal.example"
       "portal.example"
       "v4.portal.example"

and since DHCPv4/v6 can customize the answer with a URL that includes
a ?query, while RA's can not, that it a further reason why they might not be
the same.

The sentence leading up to this word speaks of different classes of clients already.

HOWEVER, I think that we might be in error in section 3, where we say that
they have to be identical. Oops.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email