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

Re: [Captive-portals] IETF 99 minutes

I don't believe "We shouldn't go there." were my words... We are already there!

Concerns about net neutrality and 'discriminatory services' is often used (by the chairs) to raise concerns about ICMP... however, a walled garden itself is 'discriminatory services' and should we review Dest-Unreach/Admin-Prohibited or TCP Reset (used today by some NASs when enforcing walled garden discriminatory services') ? 

Yet, I haven't once seen this same concern raised about API methods of delivering walled garden information.  

I agree 100% that this WG does the "work" NOT on the mailing list... rather, behind closed doors then votes in the in-person meeting... 

We need more implementors, deployers, and vendors (specifically the Guest/Public access business units) to be represented, not just on the mailing list, but in WG voting and even WG leadership. 


On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Gunther Nitzsche <[email protected]> wrote:

and thanks for the meeting minutes.

I have two (no..three :) small comments on that:
There is an uncontradicted comment saying:

David Dolson: need to
notify non-http-80
Tommy Pauly: expect to interact with web pages
considers status code 511 to be dead until new information.

I am wondering why the complete discussion in the last weeks
regarding  511 - status on this mailing list seems to be completely
ignored? At least for me it is still the preferred way to go as I mentioned
earlier here.


Martin: <hat off> Some
feedback I got was (a) there are far too many bits & messages (maybe dest
unreach is enough), you allow provider to provide discriminatory services.
B: That's what walled garden does. We shouldn't go there.

..and I thought, we had the consensus that walled garden
is a perfect topic for this ml?

Further down:

Tommy: today, we wait for capport
probe to complete until allowing network access.

That is not what we do. Download of antivirus -patterns or
self- reenabling after abuse block is a valid reason to
reach parts of the network even when the customer is blocked.



On 31.07.2017 03:00, Erik Kline wrote:
> FYI: I have uploaded the meeting minutes as captured in Etherpad.
> Many thanks to David Dolson (and any others) for taking notes.
> You can find the minutes on the wg meetings page:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/capport/meetings/
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/minutes/capport
> and in the wg-materials repo on github:
>     https://github.com/capport-wg/wg-materials
> I have not edited this initial upload of the minutes in any way.
> Please review if/when you get a chance; we can post corrections/clarifications.

NetCologne Systemadministration
NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH
Am Coloneum 9 ; 50829 Köln
  Timo von Lepel,
  Mario Wilhelm
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates:
  Dr. Andreas Cerbe
  HRB 25580, AG Köln

Captive-portals mailing list
[email protected]