Re: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 04 February 2013 04:03 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0CF21F89CE for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:03:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ySoEFv-bPJk0 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751C821F8955 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUQ8zGW2CkbcwYps1AxlbYiD9ucneqlQG@postini.com; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:03:37 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB5901080C9 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:03:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF3BB190043; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:03:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:03:36 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Thread-Topic: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF
Thread-Index: AQHOAhiC0CZRnojC20SeBNCskG9mTphowXmAgABVUwCAAIRSAA==
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 04:03:36 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747CDEA@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <CAM+vMERak2vAoYFeSLRep2xjpm480qPjutyv4-tV=KtU0XO=fw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747479BA9@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAM+vMETvE==qUZO2_rhyUB+=ChUR4a9CoTCF+q=gBL2cRA+0UA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747BB1E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <20162.1359922198@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20162.1359922198@sandelman.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <758672BC68096347AF2BC03FBCA8A1E4@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension <draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 04:03:38 -0000

On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
 wrote:
> The IETF needs to write a BCP on captive portals. Abusing DNS is never
> the right answer due to DNSSEC, the MIF situation just makes that
> obvious to more users.

It would be nice if we had a solution to offer, and not just a set of practices to follow.   Right now there is no IETF protocol that can be used to say "you have connected to a captive portal, please do BLAH so that you can access the network."