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

[Kyle Larose <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benjamin,

Thanks for the review. Responses inline below.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 19:38, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-architecture/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for addressing my Discuss (and comment!) points.
>
> A few new notes on the -09:
>
> Section 1.2 has a new instance of "Captive Network" that didn't get caught
> up in the renaming of "Captive Network" to "Captive Portal"
>
> Section 2.1
>
> Maybe s/navigate the User Portal/navigate to the User Portal/?
>

These have been fixed
(https://github.com/capport-wg/architecture/pull/162). Thanks for
pointing them out. There were quite a few missing captive networks. I
think I got them all now.

> Dave's suggested rewording
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/nMLJv4gzGjBQZN_5-TJyrfZZbkI/)
> is correct but not parallel to how we discuss the DNS-ID case.
> I'd recommend either rewording both cases or neither, but don't
> have much of a stance on which is preferred.
>

I think we should leave this as-is, unless someone else objects. I
don't think what we have is wrong, and I prefer to minimize churn at
this point.


Thanks,

Kyle