Doh. I'd responded to this (on the plane back from RIPE in Bucharest), somehow didn't hit "Reply All".
Here is how I'd proposed to address comments: Some networks require interaction from users prior to authorizing network access. Before that authorization is granted, network access might be limited in some fashion. Frequently, this authorization process requires human interaction, either to arrange for payment or to accept some legal terms. Currently, network providers use a number of interception techniques to reach a human user (such as intercepting cleartext HTTP to force a redirect to a web page of their choice), and these interceptions are indistinguishable from man-in-the-middle attacks. As endpoints become inherently more secure, existing interception techniques will become less effective or will fail entirely. This will result in a poor user experience as well as a lower rate of success for the Captive Portal operator. The CAPPORT Working Group will define secure mechanisms and protocols to - allow endpoints to discover that they are in this sort of limited environment, - provide a URL to interact with the Captive Portal, - allow endpoints to learn about the parameters of their confinement, - interact with the Captive Portal to obtain information such as status and remaining access time, and - optionally, advertise a service whereby devices can enable or disable access to the Internet without human interaction. (RFC 7710 may be a full or partial solution to the first two bullets) The working group may produce working documents to define taxonomy and to survey existing portals and solutions. These might or might not be published as RFCs, and might or might not be combined in some way. 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 really captive portals, and have largely been solved in other ways. Initially, the working group will focus on simplifying captive portal interactions where a user is present. A secondary goal is to look at the problem posed to or by devices that have little or no recourse to human interaction. Comments: Comment from: Alissa. The phrase "satisfy the requirements" is pretty ambiguous. I would suggest either explaining what requirements are intended (e.g., "the network operator's requirements for obtaining network access" or something along those lines) or dropping the phrase altogether if the point is really just to provide the URL. Explanation; I was meaning "satisfy the captive portal" - do whatever is needed to make it happy (pay some $$$, accept AUP, etc), but this is not clear, not easy to make it clear. Resolution: Dropping the phrase. Thank you. Comment from :Jari The phrase "unrestricted access" was not clear to me. Perhaps you meant "Internet access". Comment: Yeah, that works. Before a CP is satisfied it sometimes only gives access to certain services / sites (e.g: United Airlines only gies you access to their website until you pay them $$$) - "unrestricted access" was supposed to mean, well, I guess, Internet access. Resolution: Changed it to be "Internet access" Comment from: Benoit What's the relationship with draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-16? Any value in mentioning it in the charter? "Building on/Integrating/Improving/... (*) draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-16 (RFC editor queue), the WG will ..." (*) depending on the answer to the first question Comment: I was uncomfortable suggesting this myself, because I'm obviously biased. draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-16 is in / has completed AUTH48 (will be RFC 7710) I think that it solves the first 2 bullets nicely (discovery / URL) in many cases, but, again, I may be biased. Resolution: " RFC 7710 may be a full or partial solution to the first two bullets. " inserted. I don't really like where it is / the wording, additional suggestions welcome. David Bird (in email - [TODO(WK): Find link when not on plane!]): David suggested that we don't need to mention iPass / Boingo / etc by name, and provided: "Out of scope are "roaming" (federation of credentials), network selection, or the on-boarding/provisioning of clients onto secure (or any alternate) networks." as suggested text. I think that this works nicely. Any objections? ----- Sorry folk for not having managed to hit Reply All. W On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:09 PM Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > capport denizens, > > After yesterday's IESG telechat, the capport charter was approved > *pending edits*, and I'm holding it as I wait for responses to the > assorted comments in this final round of review. > > See the comments here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-capport/ballot/ > > Please review the comments ASAP, decide what edits, if any, are needed > to address the comments, and post a collective response to the IESG > list (one message responding to all the comments is fine). I'll check > that, make the edits in the datatracker, and we can finalize the > approval of the charter. > > Thanks, > Barry >
_______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
