Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Duke <> Sun, 07 June 2020 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A163A08FF; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 19:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ehbvgtTe_m5z; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 19:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F20E53A08FD; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 19:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u13so8625651iol.10; Sat, 06 Jun 2020 19:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9MosrKDYEslKujgQPoVXzNBFooIRYoNWLEUCUeVkJsg=; b=EXcJ+gBQMwGmwrUbNBQmA28cSmPTXpZgaEr9cPyN+gvO7ErxziIFbo+hnKh8YEThbx DPgRjGi5933HCWMQgvWIWdITYVcsODVX5NUB5txt/1KGmaSHBqDSoNTBn9pc8VVNZT+e aXJ2TWJ70m6GKVz4PYGLBojb05MR24u3REk/2HPb7TgxEyKSrpr7qbO1GGR/09CRyqSL hbUdyMxpIlNkrUZa0a87/dXXlkxF2G3YOKZ+E4Q2ydGpE/u0VWKb0mx2L68Tf0T4FPj2 H43P1ty/bYRaX/S9axAV6L+hPDExPz2h6EHqyPE0hxmBqEbfdRK/Fa++W09FS4uNwit9 q0Ng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9MosrKDYEslKujgQPoVXzNBFooIRYoNWLEUCUeVkJsg=; b=pjqpaKBudyO0OhE7vXQgXc8NYhiloZ6uspvLCw+W2STBpXkHgo14UxMYiZwp44FwiL rd9S1B/U3w6H0DMBoY2ep8DF38AD5oGo7yYiagLD+VJqDGMLMIVm18c1rHaAbuAZlbna YnLmFYfj9La81R6c69C4m40FVH7mKJ0A9YgcLaYqvN240OUrbl9p+Sd1WDIvpXpNogIP CIbdO8F0u5a0BvhLBCN0YkUT+Ka7hLWRDH9mDgRJq/P56+LyAQI8VCgRW+a2bAZJvfBX OMNW3ozxusS7JRFXNULu9XYml8xgThUisZ6pzn+AqdAiSxomxvAAFmJL0xkpgYNJRrVY NyUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533KkKG020OpQ1J37TJNSYqgRB3h3caQSCBDkU4t+b2YFUrRGw7R IdfWAiRmLcZAUPb17F+q7ZsJ0+dMkqjvnduNHjw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwlWgmrtfcqqAg0/NyCp5u6QC+a0jrCM6aiLYNgFkM+Ou82th/Lg1U18wrbAvSKFuqaEsGYVR5TfzBmlXjxNYo=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:1746:: with SMTP id 67mr15197683jah.103.1591498445269; Sat, 06 Jun 2020 19:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Martin Duke <>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 19:53:54 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Tommy Pauly <>
Cc: Martin Thomson <>, The IESG <>,,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007db0a205a7759b5f"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2020 02:54:07 -0000

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 4:52 PM Tommy Pauly <> wrote:

> I believe in this case the architecture document needs to change, or
> clarify that this MUST refers to that the mechanism needs to be *able* to
> communicate such a URI, not that such a URI must always be communicated.
> The group has discussed this several times, and I believe the API doc
> reflects the consensus: while we aren’t tackling solutions for captive
> portals that don’t involve User Portal pages (future solutions using a more
> OS-driven experience and perhaps built in payment, etc), we want to allow
> the API JSON to be usable in those new models. Not all captive networks
> will necessarily use this kind of URI in the future, and there’s no need to
> make the registry lock that in as mandatory.

Very well, I’d like to hear from one of the chairs, but if confirmed I’m
happy to move my DISCUSS to -architecture.

> >
> > I am also confused by this sentence at the end of section 4.1 about
> failed
> > authentication: “It may still be possible for the user to access the
> network by
> > being redirected to a web portal.”
> >
> > Who is doing the redirecting here? If authentication has failed, how is
> this
> > redirect authenticated and secure against theft of credentials?
> This is referring to the fact that the old HTTP redirect of a clear text
> webpage may still happen on a network. Even networks that support the API
> will need to handle legacy clients. This is only about redirecting
> unrelated pages to the user portal, and is orthogonal to the authenticity
> of the API server.
> >

Thank you for the clarification. I will move this bit to a COMMENT and
suggest “...access the network by redirecting a clear text webpage to a web