Re: [Captive-portals] WGLC on draft-ietf-capport-architecture and ...-api

[Gurshabad Grover <[e-mail]>]

On 3/5/20 12:25 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:> This starts a joint working
group last call on these documents. Please respond this mail with your
views regarding the suitability of these documents for publication (as
Informational RFC and Proposed Standard RFC respectively) before 2020-03-23.
> 

Thanks for all the great work, authors and editors! I have reviewed
capport-architecture, and I support its publication as an RFC. Some
comments below.

On capport signal
-----------------
The Captive Portal Signal section (2.5) was a bit confusing to me.

Is 'signal' only meant to be binary information, i.e. whether traffic is
restricted or not? (pt. 3 in the section) If yes, the inclusion of a
'pending expiry' notification in the same section seems contradictory.
(It also assumes that some information is available since "On receipt of
preemptive notification, the User Equipment can prompt the user to
refresh.")

I think the clearest explanation of it is offered in the Security
Considerations rather than the section itself, i.e. the signal should
not carry any information at all, that it just acts as a prompt for the
User Equipment to contact the API. (This explanation makes other things
fall in line as well: the 'pending expiry' notification is just a
timed-signal that is no different from any other except for when it was
triggered.)

I would suggest rephrasing sentences in the Captive Portals section to
make them as clear as the security considerations text. If my
understanding is correct, please let me know and I'm happy to submit a
PR to this effect.


Pull request
------------
I have submitted a pull request with some editorial suggestions; happy
to elaborate on them if the motivation is not clear from the changes.
<https://github.com/capport-wg/architecture/pull/51>


Privacy considerations
----------------------
Since we're dealing with unique identifiers and traffic information,
would love to hear people's thoughts on whether a brief privacy
considerations section would be useful. If yes, happy to help with that.



Thank you.
-Gurshabad