Re: [Captive-portals] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-04

2020-06-01 Thread Tommy Pauly
Hi Rifaat, Your comments make it clear that the recommendation to make the API server name visible isn’t necessarily clear. I think it’s not a harmful thing to show, as a way to give troubleshooting information and transparency to the user, but it is not a security-critical point. It seems

Re: [Captive-portals] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-04

2020-06-01 Thread Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 2:07 AM Erik Kline wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:37 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef > wrote: > > > > Adding SecDir back to this thread. > > > > > > >Martin Thomson Tue, 19 May 2020 01:02 UTCShow > header > > > > > >On Tue, May 19, 2020, at 07:08, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote: >

Re: [Captive-portals] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: (with COMMENT)

2020-06-01 Thread Michael Richardson
Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote: > In Section 2, paragraph 2, it says the operator "SHOULD ensure that the URIs > provisioned by each method are equivalent". Does "equivalent" here mean > "identical", or just "synonymous"? {speaking as a WG member} synonymous, I think that

[Captive-portals] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: (with COMMENT)

2020-06-01 Thread Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please