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

Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00

Hi Jason, 

Thanks for that, I've made some edits; see:

Regarding notifications, I think we should discuss whether it's useful to consider them as 'captive portals' or not. The techniques are similar in many cases, but there are some important differences.


> On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:16 AM, Livingood, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> Good document overall. Some comments/suggestions to consider for a ­01
> update. 
> 2.0, consider extending (IN CAPS):
> ³...before allowing broader (but not necessarily complete) Internet
> 2.0, consider adding techniques to include HTML injection, Internet
> Content Adaptation Protocol (RFC 3507), and the method described in RFC
> 6108.
> 2.1, Information or Notifications, some possible additional examples:
> security alerts, critical service information, account status, usage status
> 3.0, consider adding:
> HTML injection, such as methods using ICAP, which runs counter to the
> preferences of some users.
> 3.0, Feel free to take a look at the text in Section 12 of RFC 6108 and
> use some of that text. You got the gist of it in the Non-Browser Clients
> sub-section though (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108#section-12)
> Regards
> Jason

Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/