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

Re: [Captive-portals] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-capport-architecture-03.txt

Le lundi 31 décembre 2018 à 14:16 +1100, Martin Thomson a écrit :
> no hats...
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018, at 06:14, David Bird wrote:
> > I, for one, think "Document that the signaling protocol does not
> > provide
> > mechanisms for non-binary blocking." is where IETF tries to become
> > a some
> > sort of legal authority...
> The IETF describes what consenting protocol participants can do.  So,
> I'm fairly sure that legal authority has no bearing on
> this.  However, your point remains a good one.

Let's be honest and cut the crap.

Binary blocking does not exist. No one with an ounce of technical know-
how will ever implement such a thing.

A plane/train portal will provide free access to the train/plane live
location map, a school will provide free access to the school library
website and class schedules, a corp will provide free access to the
corp internal webapps, an internet cofee will provide free access to
its commercial portal with remaining time counter, parental controls
will provide free access to Disney comics, and so on. Tech stuff
documentation, including portal documentation, is online by defaut
nowadays. Even lightbulbs and toasters can have their own webpage.
Pretenting a network equipment will not in 2018 is utter dishonest
technical bullshit. That's not consensus at work that's capture by
special interests.

Normalising binary blocking is as idiotic as normalising that home
doors have no locks because some ultra marginal rural neighborhoods can
afford not to lock their doors (Guess what? They buy doors with locks
like everyone else. They just choose not to use them. And even when
they do not lock their main door they *will* lock the shed containing
dangerous sharp instruments in presence of small children).

When the IETF tries to pretend, that the default is different from the
one any last year IT student will naturally implement, it is taking a
political not technical stance. It is sabotaging its own standards. It
is discrediting itself as a neutral technical authority.

Nicolas Mailhot