I think it is important to write in subsection 2.1 why would I need a captive portal for authentication instead of more secure solutions, like 802.1x. Despite the reason is implicit in the text
"In all of these cases, using a Web browser is attractive, because it gives the network the ability to tailor the user's interface and experience, as well as the ability to integrate third-party payment, advertising, authentication and other services." , I consider it is better to be explicit about some examples of needs that dot1x does not take into account, because it is a widely deployed solution that many people consider the right way to do things. Caciano On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Yaron Sheffer <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree about removing (or not including) the asterisks. Adding the tools > team. > > Thanks, > Yaron > > > On 02/16/2016 01:30 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >> Actually, the markdown-to-RFCXML tool works fine (as you can see in the >> HTML generated from this: https://mnot.github.io/I-D/capport-problem/), >> it's just that TXT doesn't have bold, so XML2RFC marks the bold text >> asterisks :-) [I happen to think that this is a distraction that needs >> to be switched off in XML2RFC.] >> >> Grüße, Carsten >> >> >> Yaron Sheffer wrote: >> >>> Your markdown-to-RFC tool misses out on asterisks that are being used >>> for bold text, and remain in the TXT version (Sec. 3). >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
