Re: [TLS] access_administratively_disabled v2

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:39 AM, Mateusz Jończyk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> W dniu 04.01.2018 o 16:52, Stephen Farrell pisze:
>> I'm fairly sure I'm against attempting to handle captive portal issues at
>> the TLS layer. Any changes to TLS needed for captive portals ought really
>> garner consensus within the capport wg and then be discussed here. (It
>> looks from the archive of that wg that this topic hasn't even been raised
>> there despite a few people suggesting that, which is IMO another reason to
>> reject this proposal now.)
>
> Captive portals != filtering, these are AFAIK different problems and need
> mostly different solutions. I just integrated them under the same umbrella
> because they initially both used to seem to benefit from adding alert messages
> to TLS (but that idea is dead now).
>
> I am not certain whether adding captive_portal AlertDescription to TLS would
> be of benefit. It seems to me that possibly yes, but haven't reviewed this.

Please take that discussion to the capport WG ([e-mail]).

However, it seems like you want to address filtering/censorship more
than you want to address the captive portal case.  I can say that the
capport WG isn't interested in anything that might improve filtering
or censorship and are explicitly designing mechanisms that avoid doing
so.  I won't say that you can't raise the issue, but you should be
aware that this topic has been discussed quite a bit already and
unless you have new information, I doubt you will change the
conclusions.