Re: [Captive-portals] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-capport-architecture-03.txt

[David Bird <[e-mail]>]

Imagine if other network notifications were binary ... "You have no route
to at least one host, but not telling you which one."

I have to agree; the signaling section - without even specifying any real
solution - is only trying to limit any future work .. and not for any
technical reasons, at least not on the network infrastructure side.

I think there are maybe two motivating factors for those pushing the binary
agenda:
- A misguided attempt at enforcing net neutrality - when, in fact, a binary
signaling protocol doesn't solve (or prevent) any net neutrality issues, it
only makes them less transparent (to the network device and user)
- A misguided attempt at limiting the signaling protocol because it is just
easier on the user device side to think binary - when, in fact, nothing is
preventing the UE from treating the "full-disclosure" notification as
something binary (until the device software can think beyond the binary
captive portal)



On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 5:47 AM Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Le lundi 31 décembre 2018 à 14:16 +1100, Martin Thomson a écrit :
> > no hats...
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018, at 06:14, David Bird wrote:
> > > I, for one, think "Document that the signaling protocol does not
> > > provide
> > > mechanisms for non-binary blocking." is where IETF tries to become
> > > a some
> > > sort of legal authority...
> >
> > The IETF describes what consenting protocol participants can do.  So,
> > I'm fairly sure that legal authority has no bearing on
> > this.  However, your point remains a good one.
>
> Let's be honest and cut the crap.
>
> Binary blocking does not exist. No one with an ounce of technical know-
> how will ever implement such a thing.
>
> A plane/train portal will provide free access to the train/plane live
> location map, a school will provide free access to the school library
> website and class schedules, a corp will provide free access to the
> corp internal webapps, an internet cofee will provide free access to
> its commercial portal with remaining time counter, parental controls
> will provide free access to Disney comics, and so on. Tech stuff
> documentation, including portal documentation, is online by defaut
> nowadays. Even lightbulbs and toasters can have their own webpage.
> Pretenting a network equipment will not in 2018 is utter dishonest
> technical bullshit. That's not consensus at work that's capture by
> special interests.
>
> Normalising binary blocking is as idiotic as normalising that home
> doors have no locks because some ultra marginal rural neighborhoods can
> afford not to lock their doors (Guess what? They buy doors with locks
> like everyone else. They just choose not to use them. And even when
> they do not lock their main door they *will* lock the shed containing
> dangerous sharp instruments in presence of small children).
>
> When the IETF tries to pretend, that the default is different from the
> one any last year IT student will naturally implement, it is taking a
> political not technical stance. It is sabotaging its own standards. It
> is discrediting itself as a neutral technical authority.
>
> --
> Nicolas Mailhot
>
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>