Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Stephen Farrell's Yes on charter-ietf-capport-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:23:48 -0400

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Farrell
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-capport-00-01: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-capport/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Good to see us trying to make this better.
>
> One question below. (I'm still a "yes" ballot regardless
> of whether the answer is yes or no btw.)
>
> Say if someone wanted to make a protocol to advertise
> that such and such a captive portal exists and can be
> interacted with at such and such a URL when one is
> connected to such and such a WLAN/LAN/SSID in such
> and such a location. Would discussing that be in scope
> for the WG?

As with all interesting questions -- it depends, partly on how I
interpret your question :-)

If you are asking once you have actually connected to the network --
there is already a protocol that advertises that "such a captive
portal exists and can be interacted with at such and such a URL when
one is
connected to such and such a WLAN/LAN/SSID" via DHCP and RA -
draft-wkumari-dhc-capport (RFC Ed)
I believe that it is within the scope of the WG to define additional
ones, covered by:
"- allow endpoints to discover that they are in this sort of limited
environment,
- allow endpoints to learn about the parameters of their confinement,
- provide a URL to interact with the Captive Portal and satisfy the
requirements,"

If you are meaning more of a big directory of what all networks exist,
what all captive portals exists, etc 9so that you could, for example,
download all of this information into your iPhone / Android before you
go traveling in a foreign country, then no, I think that that is
fairly far outside the scope.

If you are asking about something that shows up in the beacon frames
of wireless, then, also no, that is a function best handled by IEEE /
WiFi Alliance. They have already created ANQP, Passpoint / Hotspot,
etc. and I don't want us stepping on their toes.

It you are meaning something else, then I'll hedge my bets with "Yes,
it's in charter..." and "No, no no no....", and choose whichever
entertains at the time :-P

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:50:04 -0400

Do we think we need to make any charter changes for this, or just let
the discussion happen organically, under Warren's and his co-chair's
capable hands?

Barry

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Stephen Farrell
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 15/10/15 15:23, Warren Kumari wrote:
> I like your answer but that wasn't the one I meant:-)
>
>>
> That's the one I meant, sorry for being ambiguous, though I was asking
> about the protocol/schema and not the big directory itself of course.
> I'm also fine with your "no" answer. I'd also have been ok with the
> opposite answer. If you think that wg participants find it obvious
> that's fine too, but if not maybe saying this isn't in scope would be
> useful.
>
>>
> Yeah, I also didn't mean that:-)
>
> Ta,
> S
>
>>
>>