I am in for meeting at Bis ’n Bites Jim
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 5:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Send Captive-portals mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Captive-portals digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Tokyo (David Bird) > 2. Re: Ben Campbell's Yes on charter-ietf-capport-00-01: (with > COMMENT) (David Bird) > > From: David Bird <[email protected]> > Date: November 1, 2015 at 7:40:24 PM GMT+9 > To: Barry Leiba <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Roscoe, > Alexander" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Tokyo > > > It is unfortunate there isn't an official meeting this time around. > > If anyone wants to meet up informally, I'm interested... > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Barry Leiba <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I am looking at the schedule for Tokyo and I did not see a meeting for the > > group. Are we skipping this meeting? > > >From a formal point of view: the working group is not formally > chartered yet (we should be approving the charter in an IESG meeting > in Yokohama), so no session was scheduled. People can, of course, > arrange to meet informally. > > Barry > > _______________________________________________ > Captive-portals mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals> > > > > > From: David Bird <[email protected]> > Date: November 1, 2015 at 8:42:16 PM GMT+9 > To: John Mann <[email protected]> > Cc: Ben Campbell <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, Hirotaka Nakajima <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, The IESG > <[email protected]>, Barry Leiba <[email protected]>, Warren Kumari > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Ben Campbell's Yes on > charter-ietf-capport-00-01: (with COMMENT) > > > Sorry for the late comments here, > > With respect to: > Out of scope are "roaming" or federated types of solutions (Passpoint, > eduRoam, iPass, Boingo), which use mechanisms such as 802.1X or a client > application to authenticate. These are not really captive portals, and > have largely been solved in other ways. > > - What do others think about excluding 'network selection' in general from > the scope? (i.e. 'on-boarding' onto secure wireless, which starts to overlap > with HS2.0). > > - While I agree that roaming and federated solutions are out of scope, it > might be too strong to outright exclude HS2.0/Passpoint, iPass, Boingo, and > the like. In HS2.0 release 2, for example, an OSU network can have a captive > portal (and I think capport work could apply here) - likewise, I think iPass > and Boingo (apps) could benefit form the simplifying of captive portal > interactions. (Additionally, even if a network uses 802.1x or an application > to authenticate, that doesn't necessarily mean it will be and remain captive > portal free -- consider the scenario where a user is being required to top-up > their account balance to continue using the 802.1x network). > > Suggested text: > Out of scope are "roaming" (federation of credentials), network selection, or > the on-boarding/provisioning of clients onto secure (or any alternate) > networks. These are not captive portal specific problems and have largely > been solved in other ways. > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:20 PM, John Mann <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi, > > On a slight tangent, I would like to mention that most client computers are > now capable of using IPv6, > with many preferring it because e.g. Facebook reportedly loads 15% faster. > > Hopefully, sometime, some networks managed by Captive Portals will become > dual-stack. > > Lets not set the standard for all future captive portal networks to be > IPv4-only forever. > Hopefully, it may even be possible for clients to operate IPv6-only if they > choose. > > Suggested text: > insert after "- allow endpoints to learn about the parameters of their > confinement," > --- > - allow endpoints to learn about and interact with the Captive Portal over > IPv6, > and allow endpoints to access the IPv6 Internet, > --- > > Thanks, > John > > > On 16 October 2015 at 13:04, Barry Leiba <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Sorry just a typo correction and maybe too late for the comments but > > eduroam should not be eduRoam but eduroam. > > > > It would be great if this typo could be fixed. > > And so it is. > Thanks for pointing it out. > > Barry > > _______________________________________________ > Captive-portals mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals> > > > _______________________________________________ > Captive-portals mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Captive-portals mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
_______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
