Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09: (with COMMENT)

[Kyle Larose <[e-mail]>]

Martin,

Thanks again for the review.

Responses inline below.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 02:05, Martin Duke via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09: No Objection
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> After further discussion, I see that draft-09 does indeed address my Discuss -
> the user-portal-url is optional in practice, just something the api design has
> to cover.
>
> I found the terminology around “Captive Portal API server” and “Captive Portal
> Server” to be a little confusing, as these are similar terms. The latter also
> doesn’t get its own discussion in Section 2 and is confusingly called the “web
> portal server” in Figure 1.
>

In version 09 we've replaced all mentions of "Captive Portal Server"
with User Portal. Similarly, we ensured that we were consistent with
its use throughout the document, so "web portal" has become "user
portal".

> After Figure 1, this seems to be consistently called the “web portal” (sec 2.6
> and 4). In the API doc it is called a "user portal." It would be great to unify
> the terminology across the documents as a whole.

We've fixed up the diagram and the document as a whole to use "user
portal", which is consistent with the API.

>
>

Thanks again,

Kyle