IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dhcwg] AD sponsoring - draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-07

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Sun, 04 January 2015 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944D71A010A; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:32:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 RCESKutSQMes; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:32:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 268C91A0092; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mbp.local (c-67-188-0-113.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.0.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t04LWN1Q028874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:32:24 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <54A9B162.1040407@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 13:32:18 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/34.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LugQhArCa0Sha7bgIL59QKHqSqhNxeTrD"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/1q5m2QKBmBp-XBmza6PFzU2KZnw
Subject: [dhcwg] AD sponsoring - draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-07
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 21:32:26 -0000

Folks,

After some dicussion last year, I have agreed to sponsor
draft-wkumari-dhc-capport
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-07). what I'm
looking for feeback on right now is feedback from potential
implementors, either of client implementations of captive portal
detection or captive portals as to:

* Whether or not this represents a reasonable optimization,

* Have we gotten the security considerations right?

* Would you use it if there was general consensus to the approach.

Thanks
joel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email