[Captive-portals] draft-nottingham-capport-problem status

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 03 May 2017 04:43 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 85F2D1296CD for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 May 2017 21:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 HXRUbpnGjCj6 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 May 2017 21:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22a.google.com (mail-wr0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22a]) (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 6877412E872 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 May 2017 21:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id z52so96631700wrc.2 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 May 2017 21:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=aVAdXE2T3/kSWvyhtNqfNYtpJtlmHGHo4BoqGjc6n/g=; b=vIIw5J+UlSKRjgCkMGlxTwLBX6Sngl+rMFCHG1BsEw2pbymuF4c01rCsOLuoO3RZpA LlY2w5UQ3EgZZiqsrCcS1MqSbWftD0/7jUnBuGI3qnLbZMO/dQV/9NCnhoO3g9ncQtwu DcWtLnIhizF2tOc5NpuhHEPwQ+dOlzS6mc/MoevZWFntXeSxSM9uXKSeYjVKX6YtCkIH iNkPzbkIrFDROoyUtjLVow1FxKDyvL/aKmpjSJMbMvDhDbWZE08vgGS94FPAAuyisoKB ELaY3V4+MLNTqPEy0IFoYV1Ns31knoYQ+VDuwPKCLBKqxYFRl1YTdT/NKAjRLzh5Sou5 9REw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=aVAdXE2T3/kSWvyhtNqfNYtpJtlmHGHo4BoqGjc6n/g=; b=mO5RxBrrOSAQAom02R7MhrHjZxSs2EF47rNKGuO7tZoUSYIrbTkfRfLFn19MQsJAdh sRbK5TPCGV+o6cBpjodLBigsPcJr4gE6CLxXHrC6a4du3pCWwcBoBZNcOa+7Ddg8C2uq KbPDfQOPXFftgkbdswdEsh5pxVoTiT2PG3yroKm4cekWXviLkI5eWfQwag2ll+cVQ/0s fhRVozL7feEPtxM3HzGT2e5B6Xb1LwhjTVtOXgUyC9bXYb09FbRyxwsFM0HrhXj+Cm8T Ac258WW1yDy2jhuBzUV0gAFUCPYSzQ+AHSZdBZCFJLB+3pOPUFD15M0VJ5gYOjEZnS/9 s6Og==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6wYstrt+p07sZwDobKE5kmppSspxnRcJkfPD8DLK27zyRYVluN cgCSde2VR1TAFGA669em1SRQkSIYBslL/cU=
X-Received: by 10.46.0.23 with SMTP id 23mr11066756lja.33.1493786509630; Tue, 02 May 2017 21:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.83.2 with HTTP; Tue, 2 May 2017 21:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 14:41:49 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUcuYdwe0B6620uV4u14RuXrFWbNR7u066nPFTyjMTfnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: captive-portals@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/r0-JMaxpJ6-w_5MmWgk6fAggjiU>
Subject: [Captive-portals] draft-nottingham-capport-problem status
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 03 May 2017 04:43:40 -0000

Folks,

As some people have observed, Mark's problem statement draft is long
expired.  There seemed to be a few people who were thinking that we
might adopt and publish this document.

At this point, we won't be asking for working group adoption of
draft-nottingham-capport-problem.  While it has been really useful in
framing the discussion and we thank Mark for his contribution, we
don't currently need to publish this as an RFC.  Publication of RFCs
is not a goal in and of itself, despite ample signs to the contrary.

Mark has indicated that he does not have the time to drive this work.
If we find that we might want to rely on this in some way, we will
find a new editor for the document or find some way for the necessary
content to be moved into other documents.