Subject: [Captive-portals] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:38:22 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09: 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-architecture/

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

Thank you for addressing my Discuss (and comment!) points.

A few new notes on the -09:

Section 1.2 has a new instance of "Captive Network" that didn't get caught
up in the renaming of "Captive Network" to "Captive Portal"

Section 2.1

Maybe s/navigate the User Portal/navigate to the User Portal/?

Dave's suggested rewording
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/nMLJv4gzGjBQZN_5-TJyrfZZbkI/)
is correct but not parallel to how we discuss the DNS-ID case.
I'd recommend either rewording both cases or neither, but don't
have much of a stance on which is preferred.

---

From: Kyle Larose <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 08:54:39 -0400

Hi Benjamin,

Thanks for the review. Responses inline below.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-architecture/

These have been fixed
(https://github.com/capport-wg/architecture/pull/162). Thanks for
pointing them out. There were quite a few missing captive networks. I
think I got them all now.

> have much of a stance on which is preferred.

I think we should leave this as-is, unless someone else objects. I
don't think what we have is wrong, and I prefer to minimize churn at
this point.

Thanks,

Kyle