Re: [Captive-portals] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08

Kyle Larose <> Tue, 19 May 2020 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873B23A0925 for <>; Tue, 19 May 2020 05:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hx8zApszFpvi for <>; Tue, 19 May 2020 05:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D8A73A0929 for <>; Tue, 19 May 2020 05:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w18so13155320ilm.13 for <>; Tue, 19 May 2020 05:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YDwT7NYOL6sLuOj560iGrVqs7fNgKpuq7MveKQA70so=; b=uo88S249ZlXN+x0DtYXKR/XsgZGAqyANJ7B4Am/rSHTiTkRaA8MI1xFCz2UFVyzPVe 6ZafqoJgDOMOOz5hotlCD+y56Suqz6ADvI//yszWiZ9+klNJS0xqc2IYBNHj7bwdCO/m eM/qd5kfx+GhFmHMXJRAnmM97pPHH5iUUa3OPqzBjn+UmJIWplloPoChyO7o0192nL9O enCpGdvyzWOF8mSvmI5+EhAWe6SM6m7M+DM2Zb+jJv+Avq+qbSQfI1ZQ2aoVfpVPpDlf Bdd/omuXPQrSSrmoO4j/1DJou2uQG/qq05KNZ1gYTXxoTZybEmZWq6o3nAY4HcmPPmDv mwzQ==
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=YDwT7NYOL6sLuOj560iGrVqs7fNgKpuq7MveKQA70so=; b=nWBW5nlh6TXQFY5HGVVWi58mcEaTEUG7vuBtk88e1DlbThFkbWSl1IgFhqzKW5mAEQ 2Smqaj7v7SzkerVemytAedymMVceRJuDK7M9A8Sig2f+SN5M6g6P/SEdHwsGiBlXQ1Qp p4R+1lBBAOEX6x30oWapyxBXN9D53pHlNHJT5hWFu+zJKeEgtDYKYOt/zJNTo6mgIhwZ xg/ATdDoHSdBumCxKlOmHiE8RoBUAE9pS7OxzJ8gmgqtrIf9QEh9cn39VAn3SI4aItsw yKpLYGXtpP5KhHsCQKMDt+hkGzI/kzzRgm6+V/Y+aW/CZwcgtV14L8FZum5ZcPvPBxRB OwTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321u8WTplpyzhyOUDdn+r7rBI8tJnuW3RtAo49EFCv/LBGEkMTo Kxvu/Jh6JSTXYiKW/d3vesGA2zaKeHc5/I3Y0DWpLE/sDQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxoi3zRM0536YlgQenBx7xlPU15+F+UUVio3YMY8F+9Ib18OE0pposUKGjvuf7IETW5J7nwRc7WGAYagkupcdc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:cc5:: with SMTP id c5mr19865490ilj.152.1589891404141; Tue, 19 May 2020 05:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Kyle Larose <>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 08:29:53 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Joel Halpern <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08
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: Tue, 19 May 2020 12:30:09 -0000

Hi Joel,

Thanks for the review.

On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 18:35, Joel Halpern via Datatracker
<> wrote:

> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC
> Major issues:
>     This document says it is Informational.  It says it describes "a" capport
>     architecture.  But the third paragraph of the introduction says that this
>     document standardizes an architecture.  The rest of this review assumes
>     that is an error, and this is describing "an" architecture, rather than
>     "the IETF" architecture.

You are correct. This is an error. We will address it.

> Minor issues:
>     The abstract really should expand "capport".   As simple as having the
>     first sentence read "This document describes a "captive portal" (capport)
>     archtiecture."

Makes sense. Thanks

> Nits/editorial comments:
>     Following the first bulleted list in the introduction, the document reads:
>     "this document does not yet describe...?  The word "yet" seems
>     inappropriate.  We are pbulsihgin this as an RFC.  Please remove the "yet".

Agreed. We'll remove it.

Thanks again for the feedback. I've made sure each item is captured in
a github issue so we don't forget to address them.