Hi,
In researching a different problem, it struck me that captive-portal WG
actually shares part of its problem space with part of what MIF WG worked
on (prefix properties), and DMM WG is working on.
Everybody has the need to communicate information to the clients regarding
the status of the connectivity you can have if you choose a certain src
address and gateway combination, and the "captive portal" problem is (as
far as I can see), just another piece of information needed to be
communicated to the clients (if you go to this URL and do something, you
can make this prefix gain more connectivity).
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties-05
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-ndp-support/
There was also work on DHCP option in MIF, but this was stopped due to IPR
concerns.
Has CAPPORT looked into the work done in those WGs and contemplated if it
makes more sense to join forces instead of working separately?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
Captive-portals mailing list
Captive-portals@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
