On 23 June 2015 at 11:26, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > We would like to get a discussion going on some *strawman* charter text.
I realize that this might be a little controversial, but I really don't like the term "captive portal". I think that a valuable product of this working group would be a thing that accomplishes the goal that captive portals set out to achieve, without the MitM. Currently, this charter bemoans the current status where MitM is the only real option, but does not set out to create a situation that is materially different. I'd like to see it say something more definitive about this. (And no, I'm not in denial; I expect that networks will continue to MitM, but we'll never be rid of the beast until we have a viable alternative). --- I understand that the aim is to solicit human input as a prerequisite of authorizing network access. A secondary goal is to provide programmatic access to status information, primarily time remaining, in support of knowing how to get back to the first part. Those goals could be (minimally) achieved by discovering two pieces of information: - the time remaining on the network - where to direct human eyeballs if a change to this time is desired There is some additional information that could be interesting later, perhaps: - programmatic access to login/logoff functions (useful if time-based charging is involved) - information about network paths that are not gated (though I'm struggling a little to justify this, it's a common enough feature, we might like to support it, noting that this is usually discovered via a portal page, which could be sufficient). _______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
