Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-capport-architecture-07
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 11 May 2020 13:17 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 802353A0BAC; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 DBUONOlZKaRP; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f45.google.com (mail-io1-f45.google.com [209.85.166.45]) (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 2FE833A0BBE; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f45.google.com with SMTP id s10so9548051iog.7; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NHKX4wz8DLSG9SQ+Z5a5ySmkO1vZtwKMFuq0HOZrO1s=; b=bkkn+VGQxl5b6Ik7GIg0380NYVMDPHPf/PEJUWHCUioTcroii8GXuYBG2nmLzdn6Ui +H8pzxZV2RMJNZRQ3l7XJ8donAGabrKmu78mC9IhcxmlF4/0A3STeuRarq6r9FyfG/2t V6oHhXM0PQ9RACvtPnnaFJ4IgRuHpEgGUy0mJmMHTaR3XCWUKm/Gpd4sB0YeMUwfeact 5aFNk9ul6zrq8ceAvrUY6oSGMNLk+jseuh2h6b8hZIhyjzX+CPP8Vi/vPeKg9E1ZFP0Y 4mnE+37spTNpUCOX6D+OqALc5O+gODldIqFwwZ1pczI9itfeqe9dkVPVD0eZcgZa9GrC PdIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZ7hpw590m/9wmYYEsyTUE5Bu2MXgiztdvjiw1Qg51RwvpGWWXc 8Qp1GPrXcobwM+WbTerbSEFyxChqKy/jv2inPsE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIAS6x9NjLt4f2R0+WstOh+0dlljrH3BP6ikvk8WSJNxs6xsu4Ye58fh/9wFHsl4i6T8pgCbJ23atONoP8bvEs=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:5807:: with SMTP id f7mr3975620jab.118.1589203054110; Mon, 11 May 2020 06:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+K1FZu5POa=TLz2-ON8=jvyE03gqdi+5+cNj8X4E9RoA@mail.gmail.com> <a4a3747ef330d8b2ac94a178ab691ca8@golden.net> <CALaySJLxqtqGAytEK3X083zg3hyXSOQ6FdnaTz5t1tDNS8tKeA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLxqtqGAytEK3X083zg3hyXSOQ6FdnaTz5t1tDNS8tKeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 09:17:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJ5Z2QpnVQ19ax+ChVNLSYk0yKhpk7uX4P5NiU-xcwJuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ddolson@acm.org
Cc: draft-ietf-capport-architecture.all@ietf.org, captive-portals@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/lpzBJZJbNADm32fLM6JKnhCTxsY>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-capport-architecture-07
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, 11 May 2020 13:17:57 -0000
Can we get a revised I-D up on this now, so I can get the last call started? The last calls on the other two documents are ending this week. Martin, should I hold the telechat scheduling of the other two documents to make sure that architecture is on the same telechat as they are, so the IESG is reviewing them all together? I think that's best, but can be convinced not to have the others wait. Barry On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:21 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: > > Thanks for the reply, Dave, and I think we're OK to start last call on > the document after you post a revised I-D with the changes so far -- > most unresolved things are not at a blocking level. Just one thing > I'd like to push on before you revise the I-D, though: > > > > Please be consistent about using “URI”, and not “URL”. > > > > Changed all URI to URL in commit > > https://github.com/capport-wg/architecture/commit/a9c87ba48aa64564bd9d0e1f21bd82906a2714f4 > > But that's backward: the IETF formally defines "URI" [RFC3986], not > "URL", and that document says [Section 1.1.3]: > > Future specifications and related documentation should > use the general term "URI" rather than the more restrictive terms > "URL" and "URN" > > (Additionally, we should probably include an informative reference to > 3986 on first use of the term.) > > If the working group really wants "URL" here I won't block it further, > but I would strongly prefer that we use "URI", consistent with IETF > usage. > > --- > > Collecting the other points that aren't resolved, but that need not > block last call: > > > > General: > > > Expect comments during IESG Evaluation about the extensive use of BCP > > > 14 key words in an Informational document. I don’t object to it here, > > > though I do find all the “MAY”s odd (example: “A device MAY query this > > > API at any time”, rather than “A device may query this API at any > > > time”), but I do expect some ADs to comment on it. > > > > I've reviewed all upper-case "MAY", and I believe they are used as > > intended. We've allowed the user equipment to participate or not in various ways. > > OK, then no more to do here. This was mostly just a note that I > expect to see comments, and not an expectation of any changes to the > document. Thanks for checking. > > > > — Section 2.3 — > > > > > > The API SHOULD provide evidence > > > to the caller that it supports the present architecture. > > > > > > I don’t understand what this means; can you explain? > > > > To me, this means that User Equipment can determine from the > > interaction that the API is implementing this architecture vs. > > being some random API. I imagine that a version number or content- > > type could achieve this. > > > > I've opened https://github.com/capport-wg/architecture/issues/61 > > to track the issue. > > OK. A small wording tweak will be good at some point, but let's see > if anyone else raises this point in reviews. > > > > — Section 3.3 — > > > Are we really talking about evaluating individual identifiers here? > > > Or does this really mean to discuss *methods* of generating or > > > choosing identifiers? > > > > I believe this is about choice of identifier in a solution/standard. > > > > Opened issue https://github.com/capport-wg/architecture/issues/62 > > Great; again, a small wording tweak will do it. > > > > — Section 3.4.3 — > > > Is this section talking about using a context-free URI as a UEe > > > identifier? It should be clearer about that, if so (and if that’s not > > > what it’s about, the section is misplaced). There’s nothing in here > > > that discusses how such identifiers would meet the specified criteria. > > > > I think this is trying to say the server should not be looking at > > Ethernet addresses, for example, because the server is probably not > > on the same subnet as the User Equipment. So the info needs to be > > in the URL. > > > > I hope others can weigh in on this. Created issue > > https://github.com/capport-wg/architecture/issues/63 > > To be clear here, I'm not concerned about the content of the section > as such, only about how it fits into the topic of identifier > selection. So I think it's just a matter of clarifying that, and it > should be easy to deal with by the time last call ends. > > Barry
- [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-capport… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-cap… David Dolson
- Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-cap… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-cap… Tommy Pauly
- Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-cap… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-cap… Kyle Larose
- Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-cap… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-cap… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-cap… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-cap… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-cap… Martin Thomson