Re: [Captive-portals] time-based walled gardens

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

>
> There is one use case defined in our charter:
>
> """
> Some networks require interaction from users prior to authorizing
> network access. Before that authorization is granted, network access
> might be limited in some fashion. Frequently, this authorization process
> requires human interaction to arrange for payment or to accept some
> legal terms.
> """
>
> Expanding the scope of this work to allow networks to further control
> their users' experience after authorisation to use the network (even if
> that is just giving a better user experience of that control) is not a
> small change. Allowing networks to interpose themselves in communication
> after authorisation is not a small change.
>
> AFAICT addressing these use cases would require re-chartering, and that's
> something I would argue vigorously against. I'd like to hear a clear
> statement from the Chairs about what they think the scope of work is here.
>

Doffing my co-chair hat and speaking as a general Internet citizen, I too
would oppose such a thing.  We could end up with some kind of IETF
Signalling System 7 where we ask the network if we're permitted to make a
connection for each and every new connection like some kind of circuit
setup.

As a working group member, I do wonder how we might prevent abuse of any
"solutions" we design.

As a co-chair, I'm wondering whether, in addition to
draft-nottingham-capport-problem, we need a document describing the
limitations of any potential solution space.  (How does a client OS prevent
malicious apps costing the user money by auto-extending a billed session?
et cetera)