+1 on the consent point. I'm aware of a number of organisations which believe that they need user consent to carry out necessary security monitoring of their networks. That provides a justification for portal-avoidance-avoidance features in captive portal systems.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Yaron Sheffer <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, so here's two minor comments: > > - Your markdown-to-RFC tool misses out on asterisks that are being > used for bold text, and remain in the TXT version (Sec. 3). > - In Sec. 2.1, we need to use the word "consent". Captive portals not > only present information, but require user interaction to indicate the > user's acceptance of terms of service. > > Thanks, > Yaron > > On 02/16/2016 01:24 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 16 Feb 2016, at 4:46 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark Nottingham is already working on a "problem statement" type draft with > outlines some of this, but we'd like more viewpoints/ discussions. > > Please! > > > His initial submission is here: "Before You Log In, Here's A Brief Message > From Our Sponsors!" - draft-nottingham-capport-problem > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-capport-problem/) > > ... and that's really just a regurgitation of what we previously put together > at <https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki/Captive-Portals> > <https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki/Captive-Portals>. If people have > suggestions, corrections, pull requests, etc. I'm all ears. > > Cheers, > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > Captive-portals mailing > [email protected]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
