Subject: [Captive-portals] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 07:07:26 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: 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.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read. I
really like the signaling of 'no captive portal'.

Please find below one non-blocking COMMENT (but you know the story) and 2 nits.

Please also address all Suresh's comments in his IoT review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07-iotdir-telechat-krishnan-2020-06-11/

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2.2 ==
In "should not be provisioned", I would suggest to use the normative "SHOULD".

== NITS ==

-- Abstract --
Not all users of a captive portal are 'customers', they can be guests,
students, employees, ... suggest to use 'users' (and even in the world of IoT).

-- Section 2 --
Authors, being English natives, are probably correct but " should not be
provisioned via IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA options." looks weird to m; why not "
should be provisioned via neither IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA
 options." ?