[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Captive-portals] time-based walled gardens
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I agree, but realise there's a flip side to this -- by standardising and
making these functions explicit, we are encouraging their use, both
tacitly (standardisation == approval) and by making the functionality
more reliable (when implementations support those well-defined
cowpaths). That effectively encourages they deployment of those
The IETF has tried to resist things historically, and from what I can
tell, the track record is mixed. Captive portals are not going away
anytime soon, so the only thing we can do is to make them work as well and
invisibly to the user as possible.
There are lots of things I do not like in the world, 20 line legal
disclaimers in the email footer, captive portals, 60 page EULAs etc. Yet,
10+ years on, they're still with us, and no sign of going away.
So I support their standardisation and integration into devices, so that
they're as trouble-less to the end user as possible. Today it's a mess,
but it's a mess that's not going away because we try to keep it a mess by
not creating better solutions.
Also, again, I'd like to re-iterate that captive is related to PvD, in
that it's a property of the network that can/will change. So Capport
should look into not only solving the capport problem, but try to hook
into (and help enhance) other use-cases as well, that are in related
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]