Re: [Captive-portals] Fixing RFC 7710

Alexander Roscoe <alexander.roscoe@gmail.com> Fri, 02 March 2018 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.roscoe@gmail.com>
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 B6C67129502 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 07:53:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 dXx1eQ06mMCe for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 07:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22f.google.com (mail-wr0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2E5D128959 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 07:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v65so10553713wrc.11 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 07:53:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=m6AeUfPZnobaWsbrWLs7bgSDEzSo2Zn8tU3EspRpW4A=; b=ZyshSA6RwFpRm5+VMFgAx86hNd8gsXExHYGT+BTlvzRWtQrTIIO56xhIAtHrk6Xy3S EDeATdBTB5383yCtnorA+iJhS2sS88JWJC++FSI98FYtAvJoQkJy1JoYMD9jofHR4jpg YcFBaGl9aJ4ecIks9bV8YL3FN4q7HzBbSfW/58MmsNk4caycESdpqQyzWj0DNMzjYHHt fTeCSb5HJDnlMqCACpCWtZonO8qAJemNUy1rxfFsZijYIhIJg2RwuSdwcP8yJm9XqiQz QIMNddK2F5gD/O//+KTPX136DAi86XbAW+uNNZ5D4MZhmij5chpTmquF5S7WXDFG0OAI Sieg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m6AeUfPZnobaWsbrWLs7bgSDEzSo2Zn8tU3EspRpW4A=; b=jKkpWp5zslMSTlUGq6IkG1TUH/UWNC50TJ1c8mtiMSh70WpET5+/2aWfcwt0hHx06n yT7d7W6pNu/K2gprRKB+Rof0NKtvLEllxdV2Z1wY/d+q8YXj4L+ejQFM7hnWfwtLZMF2 aru+97HDdS4UjedMCGDzWu2ldM9MWxKdMJmXTJiOsyZ9rhLMYUsjynsMEON//PV4sgqe /6DtbV6eH7UvSM45c8FZWwUR96XIdYP12WWaTTWID4SAm+kaBqAXJC+Awsa7oGHITKnj ASkpXXVkysQpVWGsbEc884zTZEYV5l9pqpvHuDsxNkP5zZPwTLUh+Jg0xIa99xS0C65T j+lA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBUJgPv1fk5EKEqCpNAWw2abcWV7pz0BLRM16/857g5QkxLyk7i EtlmT5zoXACn+0CC/WMIffzVcxzIbEKdPC6RQ/U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuJaI+GfwYsjlg4ja1XVq3tBZvU+nDRGJIQyaZzLFlsF2FkdbOtme6e78LpY/e7VDlXTnFQg+AFEdhGj2WPZuE=
X-Received: by 10.223.185.112 with SMTP id b45mr5357087wrg.159.1520006002219; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 07:53:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.131.198 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 07:53:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWJMipRtG-p0EoUXmK3u1c2ab-v4xN3WZfm3XL8s08aZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnWJMipRtG-p0EoUXmK3u1c2ab-v4xN3WZfm3XL8s08aZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexander Roscoe <alexander.roscoe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:53:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CACiaRSYDBv9Pow9OGg5_u1DUOQf__hXZMa19i2eiA0Q0xezENw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: captive-portals@ietf.org, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Olafur Gudmundssen <olafur@cloudflare.com>, ebersman-ietf@dragon.net, steve.sheng@icann.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/jLEI8EJ7iPZjzptji5MIiz45cJM>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Fixing RFC 7710
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 15:53:26 -0000

I always assumed the captive portal URL could function as the API
endpoint as well. For example, if the captive portal url is
'https://mycaptiveportal.com/index.html' then the API could port to
the same URL at index.html. Another solution could take the root part
of the URL and then attach the known URI at the end.

I believe a URL should be transported in the DHCP / RA as it needs to
support HTTPS.  There are work arounds with doing 302s but it then
becomes more steps to develop. I think RFC7710 is easy to implement
for most venders in their DHCP software.  Because of that, it acts as
a stepping stone into further enhancements.

>From an implementation point of view, nothing needs to change the
captive portal to support the DHCP / RA option which really make it
easy to enable.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> We've had a number of discussions in the captive portals group about
> fixing RFC 7710.
>
> Erik and I would like to propose a plan for that work.  We would keep
> this to addressing the issues that we have identified thus far.
> Namely:
>
> 1. The purpose of the URI is not well defined.  We would reference the
> capport architecture and API documents for that.  The group would need
> to decide between:
>   a. point to the API
>   b. point to a login page
>
> 2. There isn't a clear way to signal that there is no captive portal
> in the network.  It has been suggested that we use a special URL -
> e.g., urn:ietf:params:capport:unrestricted. Alternatively, we could
> privilege the empty string, but that doesn't have as clear a signal of
> intent.
>
> 3. RFC 7710 states that the URL SHOULD use an address literal.  This
> works at odds with the idea of using HTTPS.
>
> Is there anyone who is willing to take on this work?  We aim to start
> and complete this work in <1 meeting cycle, starting in London.
>
> For the authors of RFC 7710, let us know if you have any concerns.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals



-- 
Alexander Roscoe
484-716-9048