Re: [Secauth] Closing SecAuth list

> On Jan 13, 2015, at 8:41 AM, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 13, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is only one of the three problems being discussed and there isn't
>> enough to go forward on yet.  I'm asking that those interested go back
>> and collect thoughts to devise feasible options.  If this is the
>> problem selected, I would also need to see support from those who can
>> make the change (organizations running the wifi hotspots).  I don't
>> see the motivation for them to switch from using a captive portal,
>> especially since they charge for use of the infrastructure they
>> host/provide.
> 
>  I’ve worked with hotspots && providers for a long time.  Many have ads on their captive portal.  That being said, they make their money off of traffic, not landing pages.  They don’t care *how* people log in.  The WiFi alliance has worked on ways for people to automatically log in to hotspots.
Yes.  I helped on some of the Passport 2 certificate details, testing and deployment.

Much work in industry avoids the IETF because of focus mismatch.  The IETF clearly ‘owns’ solutions changing IETF protocols, but it is a less productive forum for industry specific solutions.

However, good solutions for authentication/identity should not be industry specific.
> 
>  But I don’t understand how secauth helps them.  The problem statements are unclear.  The solutions are vast and vague.

Some of the topics on this list have been interesting … but as noted it’s hard to contribute if the target output is unclear.

> 
>> I understand this is an issue for users, but also see
>> that the problem is bigger and involves providers of the service (who
>> have not been participating in the discussion).
> 
>  It will be hard to get hotspot providers to get involved in the IETF.  They’re working with the WiFi alliance, and even then very few of them are involved.
> 
>  This is a larger problem with the IETF.  Getting *production* people involved is hard.
> 
>> Is it worth it for those interested to get together on a single
>> problem and come back with a more clearly defined scope?  If so, it
>> would be great to see that happen and to see some of the concerns
>> addressed by getting involvement/support of service providers.
If done, perhaps a new list could be created with a 
new clearly focused topic.

Paul
> 
>  I agree.
> 
>  Alan DeKok.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Secauth mailing list
> Secauth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secauth