Subject: [Captive-portals] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on charter-ietf-capport-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:04:05 -0700

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-capport-00-01: No Objection

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Might consider a block on this but it's readily addressed.

 A stretch-goal / phase 2 work may attempt to solve this problem
for devices that have no human interaction (such as "IoT" devices).

Rather than presuppose what might be in a future charter I would simply
include this as a potential issue. 

one probably bad proposal is:

A secondary goal is  to look at the problem posed to or by devices that
have little or no recourse to  human interaction.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:20:23 -0400

That proposed text seems good to me...

W

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals

-- 
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