cWarren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote:
> We are in the process of organizing the agenda - one of the things
> which we heard from you at the BoFs is that you would like something
> like a "survey of the industry" (e.g motivation for deploying a CP) and
> a more complete understanding of why captive portal operators do things
> like defeating / whitelisting the captive portal probes.
> Mark Nottingham is already working on a "problem statement" type draft
> with outlines some of this, but we'd like more viewpoints/ discussions.
> His initial submission is here: "Before You Log In, Here's A Brief
> Message From Our Sponsors!" - draft-nottingham-capport-problem
A good read, where are we going with this document?
Potentially no where -- it may or may not get published as an RFC, but whatever the case, I've found it it be really helpful to have some thing like a problem statement document to make sure that everyone (newcomers and long time WG participants) are all working on the same page.
It it really helpful to have a document like this as an introduction to new people wanting to contribute, and for old-timers to be able to refer back to to make sure that what we are building actually solves a: a real problem and b: the right problem(s). It's very easy to get sidetracked and diving down rabbit holes solving interesting, but unrelated problems...
So, it's not necessarily "where we are going with this document", but more "where will this eventually lead us?"...
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Captive-portals mailing list