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

Re: [Captive-portals] Brian Haberman's No Objection on charter-ietf-capport-00-01: (with COMMENT)



>>> I agree with Joel that we should keep non-human-driven machines in mind.
>>
>> ... and we will keep non-human-driven machines (unattended machines?)
>> in mind, but discussions in the BoFs made it fairly clear that this
>> was not something that we would be likely to be able to solve in the
>> very initial work.
>> For example, if the CP requires payment, do you really want your
>> Internet enabled shirt button to have your credit card information?
>> And how do you configure your shirt button to know how much you are
>> willing to spend for it to have Internet access? $1000per hour? $50c?
>> Can a shirt button agree to an AUP? What about a shoe, or a
>> thermostat? We will ensure that whatever gets designed does not block
>> unattended logons, but I'm afraid that we will end up ratholing if we
>> try and boil the ocean.
>>
>> I'm more than happy to add Joel's "A secondary goal is to look at the
>> problem posed to or by devices that have little or no recourse to
>> human interaction"
>
> That's what I was agreeing with.

We already have text (the last line of the charter) that says this:

   A stretch-goal / phase 2 work may attempt to solve this problem
   for devices that have no human interaction (such as "IoT" devices).

Does that not say the same thing?  Do we really need any charter text change?

Barry