Thanks Martin, On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:02 PM, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
> You asserted (or implied) that a Boolean value was insufficiently > expressive to convey the range of possible policies that a captive > network might impose. I asserted that while that is true, whatever > you do will be turned into a go/no-go decision by the UE. This value > is giving the network provider a direct input to that decision. > > That is exactly right. All it does is make this a network operator decision (not just input). It doesn't mean the network will actually work as expected, of course... > I acknowledge that you might conclude that we're back to gaming this > out, but I have heard UE vendors say that they really don't want to > probe. So if the network says that it's good, I think that they will > save the probing for when the network breaks instead. But we'll let > Tommy and Lorenzo respond. > Indeed, we want probing to go away... I am 100% in favor of using the network (without probing) until the "network breaks instead" -- indeed, why not use the network resources until it "breaks" either abruptly (dropped packets, etc) or nicely (with cappport ICMP). I know... that isn't easy :-)
_______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
