On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:39 AM, Mateusz Jończyk <[email protected]> wrote: > W dniu 04.01.2018 o 16:52, Stephen Farrell pisze: >> I'm fairly sure I'm against attempting to handle captive portal issues at >> the TLS layer. Any changes to TLS needed for captive portals ought really >> garner consensus within the capport wg and then be discussed here. (It >> looks from the archive of that wg that this topic hasn't even been raised >> there despite a few people suggesting that, which is IMO another reason to >> reject this proposal now.) > > Captive portals != filtering, these are AFAIK different problems and need > mostly different solutions. I just integrated them under the same umbrella > because they initially both used to seem to benefit from adding alert messages > to TLS (but that idea is dead now). > > I am not certain whether adding captive_portal AlertDescription to TLS would > be of benefit. It seems to me that possibly yes, but haven't reviewed this.
Please take that discussion to the capport WG ([email protected]). However, it seems like you want to address filtering/censorship more than you want to address the captive portal case. I can say that the capport WG isn't interested in anything that might improve filtering or censorship and are explicitly designing mechanisms that avoid doing so. I won't say that you can't raise the issue, but you should be aware that this topic has been discussed quite a bit already and unless you have new information, I doubt you will change the conclusions. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
