Re: [Captive-portals] WGLC on draft-ietf-capport-architecture and ...-api

ddolson@golden.net Sat, 07 March 2020 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ddolson@golden.net>
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 840B23A1B17 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:54:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_NONE=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=golden.net
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 DMvJjFq1kV9O for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.execulink.net (smtp2.execulink.net [69.63.44.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D3B13A1B16 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:54:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=golden.net; s=execulink1; h=Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=5jEc/6SmNamkNcHZDpgp0zWg1CCrELg5a0lgoidbCTo=; b=i7KhjK0cDBShztXSp0kWnuK3K7 A/Cz4+l0F3Ge/IKT1BQMLmiuKZWXzcidcUoyvt+piv6KKbzCk8SfdCzc7ThaU5wJEYDx9SCmbvJNU pGAyiyB09L7vTBajDj4LsZhl6C3pF7gVNfWgMjwnua2ZSJtC0rQhPfxQBWRactb8gpd1AEq/jmDKp rcmt7SCG5M09Za7qJ5+TWG4QB9wnuOviRRs4aHCq4QPVenn0WqmKfBSyY8mB177FhO8Y8RmTAEUNZ XDeEotH9AVQCVY1rdKvcH+O31+/7HwVb0QEVHZKX89Kf6GNRHCG9z+t+7MUl7wihL2QAFlBrkSYlx n0bszTmQ==;
Received: from webmail.execulink.ca ([199.166.6.210]) by smtp2.execulink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <ddolson@golden.net>) id 1jAhOU-0001nn-4F; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 16:54:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 16:54:01 -0500
From: ddolson@golden.net
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Cc: captive-portals@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <6c3d2931-f8fc-4724-a5aa-81062be9a51e@beta.fastmail.com>
References: <6c3d2931-f8fc-4724-a5aa-81062be9a51e@beta.fastmail.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4-git
Message-ID: <b47252dd50cbee526c9e99da0aab8db8@golden.net>
X-Sender: ddolson@golden.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/m-KF7oiDtLTyk7lPBtJ_rlbru2s>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] WGLC on draft-ietf-capport-architecture and ...-api
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: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 21:54:05 -0000

Regarding capport-api, in the section 4.1.1 Server Authentication, is 
this advice different than the authentication done by any other HTTPS 
client? It seems like this section should just be referencing another 
document (but I don't know).

Also, I think the API document should give some guidance about caching 
indicators from the server side (I'm not sure what this should be, 
however)

Also, I think the API document needs to explain how user equipment is to 
be identified.

I'm making editorial pull requests in github.

-Dave

On 2020-03-05 01:55, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Our fine editor teams have contributed updates to these drafts.
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-capport-architecture-06
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-capport-api-05
> 
> This starts a joint working group last call on these documents. Please
> respond this mail with your views regarding the suitability of these
> documents for publication (as Informational RFC and Proposed Standard
> RFC respectively) before 2020-03-23.
> 
> There are a few minor issues, but I consider those to be minor enough
> to require only trivial fixes. Some appear to be already addressed. If
> you think that major changes are needed, or have proposed resolutions
> to issues, adding those to your email would be helpful.
> 
> Issues are tracked here:
> https://github.com/capport-wg/architecture/issues
> https://github.com/capport-wg/api/issues
> 
> I encourage people to add issues to the tracker as they review these
> documents. Directly raising minor editorial issues on GitHub will help
> us focus attention on substantive issues here.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin (and Erik)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals