[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00
>On 3 March 2016 at 13:02, Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>I caution that this might be a case where we have to watch scope. It
>might be good to understand the methods and reasons, but those
>differences could lead us down a rathole.
Fair concern. But we may not want the WG to be overly exclusive at this
early stage as to future implementations. I say that especially since at
least this operator would love to find better and more standardized
methods to do notifications using output from this WG that may fall into a
grey area between a captive portal and semi-captive portal (or however we
choose to label it) - it addition to improving Œclassic¹ captive portals
as defined here.