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

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 01 September 2020 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.ietf@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 B8B223A0BED for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 22:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=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 1yGv5rT-KZix for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 22:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32a.google.com (mail-ot1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (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 283C63A0BF2 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 22:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id y5so138488otg.5 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 22:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=crfE60E9pdqxn4H4jlSqlSXLZflO6x+fDZ9m0JEL5r4=; b=Lq6mwyCbAHIP4FnpQp+9pP6ElwGv/nhOaVT+BMopvog70dGw826cR+20yZy5aONkxq ctwlK7+RIWuitMPDYy/2juWPp8jFbsvsE9IxKxd46jgy2IpI58SB2sAXuQ+zu35vf27b 8ix2wJ2aCYN8DmV7h3A70L6Eedvfs48u5u2D3tRfGHY5A2Q42nvotuPOiiAAuJd0Lt0R OOVSFtCexUpT+ISCu2m+mCI8aCVehqK0bYdCc9NxK2mr1w+AP1Z5iGQeerPNqCozwqHe CkbXHBzF3z7Rfp8QKFTlYBeQezRPB6hHAk5osfIfPaZlzAE91AAwYpLgpuclpg64elIe JxXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=crfE60E9pdqxn4H4jlSqlSXLZflO6x+fDZ9m0JEL5r4=; b=OD7TMa35a8rICF7SVIWdybND7TPjHcGN/MzcU/K3VRd3Tepf/udJcXUbu8n0UBqnaL VVC/36SB95qYxvFO8yqL2iIybQ+mBjWqO3jyBsYPJ1PbTzv4+Tz+aEd9RkIX0hUi3Z6p /Kp39sC+Jxvtbn+0307XjKA7s8o6ysvQq2vZ7pDVDvSg+P1YgR1aQLEvMg4apkqCq9pf otNRcd8UBeEPYY128azP0pUEu/DLCdECEh4QdY1RNXMxXXDlodrL94GzC/L77z8RVFvg D4ro+/5zEb7JcrsPq60qX8iG2U3gv2YuTfb6HLE3603ea5jy57OMpRzIYA8xPeUYx0Me lRdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532tLdZbAVHRY0esg0ykpBaBwEhM0KGxisaV1Erv3OtnocrlHJJn xG3sGDtzWjZK5pAJJcS6l+0CNhB+wEeJhL0Sd94=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz4E9P9RUCa9nMtrihunl1bNCifxv0Wy+W4Hzv1y/6QcKJgF1Gt9BH2MG5g6EgCHE2RAxqg3ikiOYS8kVLfb1U=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1db5:: with SMTP id z21mr231639oti.144.1598938130441; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 22:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b666d3af-fcf6-4534-be01-7e7441d0d6d2@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b666d3af-fcf6-4534-be01-7e7441d0d6d2@www.fastmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 22:28:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMGpriXiwEWov__Ha+-t0vTiJnOCob=bpu_d2bqTV=8UwWq-_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Cc: captive-portals <captive-portals@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000486b9f05ae39cb73"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/k2aafDa518wGs9OdLpdc2ESPZ6U>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] A final check on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09
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: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 05:28:53 -0000

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
>