+1 to adopting this document as the basis for the captive API. Thanks, Tommy
> On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Dave Dolson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I support adopting the API document, expecting some changes to the details of > the API itself, which I believe the authors also said they expected. > > David Dolson > Sandvine > Original Message > From: Erik Kline > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 7:04 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [Captive-portals] [adoption call] draft-donnelly-capport-detection > > > All, > > As indicated in the minutes from Prague > [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-99-capport/], there was a > general hum in favor of the API document: > > """ > 4. API document: do we need a milestone? Humming: in favor. > 5. Is this document a good basis. Humming in favor. > """" > > This email is to initiate a two week call for adoption for: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-donnelly-capport-detection/ > > Feedback requested, even if only to restate an opinion expressed in Prague. > > Thanks, > -Erik > > _______________________________________________ > 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
