[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Captive-portals] A new draft / idea - draft-wkumari-capport-icmp-unreach



David Bird <[email protected]> wrote:
    > The risk of requiring certs for the CP-NAS interface is that WISPs will
    > probably just use self-signed certs and make the user suffer the
    > browser warnings... (Or, worse, they will not use the spec and everyone
    > has a Legacy experience).

I think that the bypass for self-signed certs will be further buried in
browsers, and so WISPs that do that will simply have either no customers,
or massive calls to the support desk.

I'm happy with either result, but I still would like a new SubjectAltName for
appliances, yes, including home routers. (The Home CPE that has no uplink
configured is a defacto captive portal)

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature