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

Re: [Captive-portals] Stephen Farrell's Yes on charter-ietf-capport-00-01: (with COMMENT)



Do we think we need to make any charter changes for this, or just let
the discussion happen organically, under Warren's and his co-chair's
capable hands?

Barry

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Stephen Farrell
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 15/10/15 15:23, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Farrell
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>>> charter-ietf-capport-00-01: Yes
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-capport/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Good to see us trying to make this better.
>>>
>>> One question below. (I'm still a "yes" ballot regardless
>>> of whether the answer is yes or no btw.)
>>>
>>> Say if someone wanted to make a protocol to advertise
>>> that such and such a captive portal exists and can be
>>> interacted with at such and such a URL when one is
>>> connected to such and such a WLAN/LAN/SSID in such
>>> and such a location. Would discussing that be in scope
>>> for the WG?
>>
>> As with all interesting questions -- it depends, partly on how I
>> interpret your question :-)
>>
>> If you are asking once you have actually connected to the network --
>> there is already a protocol that advertises that "such a captive
>> portal exists and can be interacted with at such and such a URL when
>> one is
>> connected to such and such a WLAN/LAN/SSID" via DHCP and RA -
>> draft-wkumari-dhc-capport (RFC Ed)
>> I believe that it is within the scope of the WG to define additional
>> ones, covered by:
>> "- allow endpoints to discover that they are in this sort of limited
>> environment,
>> - allow endpoints to learn about the parameters of their confinement,
>> - provide a URL to interact with the Captive Portal and satisfy the
>> requirements,"
>
> I like your answer but that wasn't the one I meant:-)
>
>>
>> If you are meaning more of a big directory of what all networks exist,
>> what all captive portals exists, etc 9so that you could, for example,
>> download all of this information into your iPhone / Android before you
>> go traveling in a foreign country, then no, I think that that is
>> fairly far outside the scope.
>
> That's the one I meant, sorry for being ambiguous, though I was asking
> about the protocol/schema and not the big directory itself of course.
> I'm also fine with your "no" answer. I'd also have been ok with the
> opposite answer. If you think that wg participants find it obvious
> that's fine too, but if not maybe saying this isn't in scope would be
> useful.
>
>>
>> If you are asking about something that shows up in the beacon frames
>> of wireless, then, also no, that is a function best handled by IEEE /
>> WiFi Alliance. They have already created ANQP, Passpoint / Hotspot,
>> etc. and I don't want us stepping on their toes.
>
> Yeah, I also didn't mean that:-)
>
> Ta,
> S
>
>>
>>
>> It you are meaning something else, then I'll hedge my bets with "Yes,
>> it's in charter..." and "No, no no no....", and choose whichever
>> entertains at the time :-P
>>
>>
>> W
>>
>