[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Captive-portals] Feedback requested: Charter text.
> On 30 Jun 2015, at 4:10 pm, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 23 June 2015 at 11:26, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote:
>> We would like to get a discussion going on some *strawman* charter text.
> I realize that this might be a little controversial, but I really
> don't like the term "captive portal". I think that a valuable product
> of this working group would be a thing that accomplishes the goal that
> captive portals set out to achieve, without the MitM.
> Currently, this charter bemoans the current status where MitM is the
> only real option, but does not set out to create a situation that is
> materially different. I'd like to see it say something more
> definitive about this. (And no, I'm not in denial; I expect that
> networks will continue to MitM, but we'll never be rid of the beast
> until we have a viable alternative).
> I understand that the aim is to solicit human input as a prerequisite
> of authorizing network access. A secondary goal is to provide
> programmatic access to status information, primarily time remaining,
> in support of knowing how to get back to the first part.
> Those goals could be (minimally) achieved by discovering two pieces of
> - the time remaining on the network
> - where to direct human eyeballs if a change to this time is desired
> There is some additional information that could be interesting later, perhaps:
> - programmatic access to login/logoff functions (useful if time-based
> charging is involved)
> - information about network paths that are not gated (though I'm
> struggling a little to justify this, it's a common enough feature, we
> might like to support it, noting that this is usually discovered via a
> portal page, which could be sufficient).
> Captive-portals mailing list
> [email protected]
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/