Do we think we need to make any charter changes for this, or just let the discussion happen organically, under Warren's and his co-chair's capable hands?
Barry On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 15/10/15 15:23, Warren Kumari wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Farrell >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >>> charter-ietf-capport-00-01: Yes >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-capport/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> Good to see us trying to make this better. >>> >>> One question below. (I'm still a "yes" ballot regardless >>> of whether the answer is yes or no btw.) >>> >>> Say if someone wanted to make a protocol to advertise >>> that such and such a captive portal exists and can be >>> interacted with at such and such a URL when one is >>> connected to such and such a WLAN/LAN/SSID in such >>> and such a location. Would discussing that be in scope >>> for the WG? >> >> As with all interesting questions -- it depends, partly on how I >> interpret your question :-) >> >> If you are asking once you have actually connected to the network -- >> there is already a protocol that advertises that "such a captive >> portal exists and can be interacted with at such and such a URL when >> one is >> connected to such and such a WLAN/LAN/SSID" via DHCP and RA - >> draft-wkumari-dhc-capport (RFC Ed) >> I believe that it is within the scope of the WG to define additional >> ones, covered by: >> "- allow endpoints to discover that they are in this sort of limited >> environment, >> - allow endpoints to learn about the parameters of their confinement, >> - provide a URL to interact with the Captive Portal and satisfy the >> requirements," > > I like your answer but that wasn't the one I meant:-) > >> >> If you are meaning more of a big directory of what all networks exist, >> what all captive portals exists, etc 9so that you could, for example, >> download all of this information into your iPhone / Android before you >> go traveling in a foreign country, then no, I think that that is >> fairly far outside the scope. > > That's the one I meant, sorry for being ambiguous, though I was asking > about the protocol/schema and not the big directory itself of course. > I'm also fine with your "no" answer. I'd also have been ok with the > opposite answer. If you think that wg participants find it obvious > that's fine too, but if not maybe saying this isn't in scope would be > useful. > >> >> If you are asking about something that shows up in the beacon frames >> of wireless, then, also no, that is a function best handled by IEEE / >> WiFi Alliance. They have already created ANQP, Passpoint / Hotspot, >> etc. and I don't want us stepping on their toes. > > Yeah, I also didn't mean that:-) > > Ta, > S > >> >> >> It you are meaning something else, then I'll hedge my bets with "Yes, >> it's in charter..." and "No, no no no....", and choose whichever >> entertains at the time :-P >> >> >> W >> > _______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
