I'd responded to this (on the plane back from RIPE in Bucharest), somehow didn't hit "Reply All".
Some networks require interaction from users prior to authorizing
network access. Before that authorization is granted, network access
might be limited in some fashion. Frequently, this authorization
process requires human interaction, either to arrange for payment or to
accept some legal terms.
Currently, network providers use a number of interception techniques to
reach a human user (such as intercepting cleartext HTTP to force a
redirect to a web page of their choice), and these interceptions are
indistinguishable from man-in-the-middle attacks. As endpoints become
inherently more secure, existing interception techniques will become
less effective or will fail entirely. This will result in a poor user
experience as well as a lower rate of success for the Captive Portal
The CAPPORT Working Group will define secure mechanisms and protocols to
- allow endpoints to discover that they are in this sort of limited
- provide a URL to interact with the Captive Portal,
- allow endpoints to learn about the parameters of their confinement,
- interact with the Captive Portal to obtain information such as status
and remaining access time, and
- optionally, advertise a service whereby devices can enable or disable access to the Internet without human interaction.
(RFC 7710 may be a full or partial solution to the first two bullets)
The working group may produce working documents to define taxonomy and
to survey existing portals and solutions. These might or might not be
published as RFCs, and might or might not be combined in some way.
Out of scope are "roaming" (federation of credentials), network selection, or the on-boarding/provisioning of clients onto secure (or any alternate) networks.
These are not really captive portals, and
have largely been solved in other ways.
Initially, the working group will focus on simplifying captive portal
interactions where a user is present. A secondary goal is to look at
the problem posed to or by devices that have little or no recourse to
Comment from: Alissa.
The phrase "satisfy the requirements" is pretty ambiguous. I would
suggest either explaining what requirements are intended (e.g., "the
network operator's requirements for obtaining network access" or
something along those lines) or dropping the phrase altogether if the
point is really just to provide the URL.
I was meaning "satisfy the captive portal" - do whatever is needed to make it happy (pay some $$$, accept AUP, etc), but this is not clear, not easy to make it clear.
Dropping the phrase. Thank you.
Comment from :Jari
The phrase "unrestricted access" was not clear to me. Perhaps you meant "Internet access".
Comment: Yeah, that works. Before a CP is satisfied it sometimes only gives access to certain services / sites (e.g: United Airlines only gies you access to their website until you pay them $$$) - "unrestricted access" was supposed to mean, well, I guess, Internet access.
Resolution: Changed it to be "Internet access"
Comment from: Benoit
What's the relationship with draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-16?
Any value in mentioning it in the charter?
"Building on/Integrating/Improving/... (*) draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-16
(RFC editor queue), the WG will ..."
(*) depending on the answer to the first question
I was uncomfortable suggesting this myself, because I'm obviously biased.
draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-16 is in / has completed AUTH48 (will be RFC 7710)
I think that it solves the first 2 bullets nicely (discovery / URL) in many cases, but, again, I may be biased.
Resolution: " RFC 7710 may be a full or partial solution to the first two bullets. " inserted.
I don't really like where it is / the wording, additional suggestions welcome.
David Bird (in email - [TODO(WK): Find link when not on plane!]):
David suggested that we don't need to mention iPass / Boingo / etc by name, and provided:
"Out of scope are "roaming" (federation of credentials), network selection, or the on-boarding/provisioning of clients onto secure (or any alternate) networks." as suggested text. I think that this works nicely. Any objections?
Sorry folk for not having managed to hit Reply All.