IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] Improve the user experience of captive portals as they're commonly understood and currently deployed

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Sat, 15 April 2017 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.com>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BD2127867 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BzDB3Y3c1OtM for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com (mail-yw0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9591E128896 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id k13so43130171ywk.1 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qv8Fj+RQxpwVGUD4rB3fyEpiUTEND+gyfLFyF1Umk5E=; b=VBb/dDfQusruS5bvSFcizyU9tyP7zHTeGv8rsgfi8046CqysAIJYMTZ1Dn3o+QkWkm 3/9vmBM5AkTC4/7IRFDwMuhpD4it49yLZMgf4JiWN2NIqVYXItt70wwuUlElfw3H8wzY MvG2jysZtYd6/Jk9uYyUiFj6ixMW2wCu3uRC37GHkUE3MYacA2RdULzITGfOodaA0ajJ 2wtLxJR/wbozgMyP1NUzqjwl7g1GQ2Gtkj8MJ6RodxIWEPahPDs5aEibbYcGPuWQEqVZ jAwJyp4dK6VUvXKAIhN05p3ahd+bnFetyF0ZRm8SktYnmZPYjjNTdrWGmDXru2MhUZy1 TzKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qv8Fj+RQxpwVGUD4rB3fyEpiUTEND+gyfLFyF1Umk5E=; b=KV1L826yLpxih/1+kZsIgr1+VMVC07d2XG5C0Y0HYLSD99V/oWCNSdDLqw255bY4za GiqnQjj5tRaf8TsJqi2vZZjLFtRNjUWDvi9sJt7soEiHYNRihjiGrfrVyuurcjNablMz QgxcueaIPc/R87dybbvbojCOQpYlnFJSksF3MF/Po1mz3gYd3+qcdoEVP81JZoj9ajpO o5f4nf5RlQH6mu1l4WYJRXHsi1zQqyCtR/fj0Dy4W7UlhW6XxxQsTmq/JVYTLZl4FJz2 XSTLcmrdI2KM7tKfhq4DmVZVI3b+5x5qJGYZ2eMZJ+8G8ggu30tMUZuAVfxMsufFhF3C zgBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6w1Dj8NCZSwYBDv+BT2ZEHrhCUkuqBvnfLiOPTgMdrWGSIgBZS 0qdhz0DYTH3kgt7wD+JqztNlMdHIVmst
X-Received: by 10.129.137.66 with SMTP id z63mr10633082ywf.211.1492262167470; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.105.84 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADo9JyVdUG5EjcOtZnTn+MPGpgY+Zim8FE9vzMoWNsw+7qqp7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADo9JyVdUG5EjcOtZnTn+MPGpgY+Zim8FE9vzMoWNsw+7qqp7Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 22:15:46 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxrpOKx8iRbuS=8m4-3tZG-UA5krqKXk7mRozkGtWN4mPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Bird <dbird@google.com>
Cc: captive-portals@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="94eb2c064e08708523054d345c71"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/zPBjn1QgPALXxWSSh3_gQH-DUcQ>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Improve the user experience of captive portals as they're commonly understood and currently deployed
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <captive-portals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/captive-portals/>
List-Post: <mailto:captive-portals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:16:10 -0000

Do the architectural elements in the capport-architecture draft accurately
capture "captive portals as they're commonly understood and currently
deployed"?

I have no experience with which to easily distinguish between elements that
are present and common in existing implementations and those that exist in
the draft solely for the purpose of meeting the proposed solution behaviour
outlined in section 3.

On 14 April 2017 at 21:37, David Bird <dbird@google.com> wrote:

> Can we get back on track and focus on our goal of improving the user
> experience of captive portals as they're commonly understood and currently
> deployed?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email