Subject: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 11:58:22 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09: Discuss

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-architecture/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

AFAICT this Discuss still applies to draft-09.

Sec 2.3  says:
At minimum, the API MUST provide: (1) the state of captivity and (2) a URI for
the Captive Portal Server.

But in section 5 of capport-api, user-portal-url is an optional field.

Both a capport-api author and a WG chair agreed that the architecture doc
should be fixed, so I'm moving the DISCUSS here.

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

I found the terminology around “Captive Portal API server” and “Captive Portal
Server” to be a little confusing, as these are similar terms. The latter also
doesn’t get its own discussion in Section 2 and is confusingly called the “web
portal server” in Figure 1.

After Figure 1, this seems to be consistently called the “web portal” (sec 2.6
and 4). In the API doc it is called a "user portal." It would be great to unify
the terminology across the documents as a whole.

---

From: Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 12:49:34 -0700

Hi Martin,

I think the DISCUSS indeed is resolved by the -09 version.

The text now says:

“At minimum, the API MUST provide the state of captivity. Further, the
   API MUST be able to provide a URI for the User Portal.”

That is in line with what the API document provides. It is *able* to provide a URI for a user portal, via the optional user-portal-url key. The API satisfies this requirement, and the requirement does not go as far as saying the value must always be provided—only that it is able to be provided.

Thanks,
Tommy

> On Aug 8, 2020, at 11:58 AM, Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals