Editors,

I've opened a few issues on the comments Subash indicated were still pending.  
I think that we can take these as last call comments in the usual fashion.  I 
don't see a pressing reason to update the draft, but it would be nice if you 
could take a look at the remaining items to see if there is any action required.

On Tue, May 12, 2020, at 03:50, Tirupachur Comerica, Subash wrote:
>  
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry, I had sent these comments sometime back, a few are still valid.
> 
> Could you please take care of these?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Subash
> 
> 
> 
> *From: *"Tirupachur Comerica, Subash" 
> <subash.tirupachurcomer...@commscope.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 4:19 PM
> *To: *"captive-portals@ietf.org" <captive-portals@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *AD review of draft-ietf-capport-architecture-07
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I was reviewing this AD and found a few discrepancy needing 
> clarifications, couple of them may just be editorial in nature.
> 
> Appreciate your response on this, thanks.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Subash
> 
> 
> *_Section 1.2_*
> 
> Captive Network and Captive Portal are used interchangeably, so do we 
> define captive portal or network or both? – [Pending]
> 
> 
> *_Section 2.3_*
> 
> At minimum, the API MUST provide: (1) the state of captivity and (2) a 
> URI for the Captive Portal Server. – [Pending]
> 
> - However, in draft-ietf-capport-api, section 5: API State Structure, 
> only "captive" (boolean): is mandatory whereas "user-portal-url" 
> (string): is optional. One of these two drafts may need an update for 
> consistency.
> 
> *_ _*
> 
> *_Section 2.6 Component Diagram_*
> 
> Although the Provisioning Service, API Server, and Web Portal Server 
> functions are shown as discrete blocks, they could of course be 
> combined into a single element. – [Pending]
> 
> - Here may be we can add the [Captive Portal Enforcement] as well, for 
> eg: API Server, Web Portal Server and Enforcement can co-exist on a 
> single WiFi Access-Point using ACLs. Also there is a feeble reference 
> to this co-location in Section 3.4.1
> 
> 
> *_Section 3 Captive Portal Signal_*
> 
> Is Enforcement Device defined anywhere else? Is it same as Captive 
> Portal Enforcement(I guess so) Or does it coordinate with it? – 
> [Resolved, Please ignore]
> 
> 
> 
> *From: *Captive-portals <captive-portals-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of 
> Bob Harold <rharo...@umich.edu>
> *Date: *Monday, May 11, 2020 at 10:35 AM
> *To: *"last-c...@ietf.org" <last-c...@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *"capport-cha...@ietf.org" <capport-cha...@ietf.org>, 
> "draft-ietf-capport-architect...@ietf.org" 
> <draft-ietf-capport-architect...@ietf.org>, "captive-portals@ietf.org" 
> <captive-portals@ietf.org>, IETF-Announce <ietf-annou...@ietf.org>, 
> "barryle...@gmail.com" <barryle...@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson 
> <m...@lowentropy.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [Captive-portals] Last Call: 
> <draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08.txt> (CAPPORT Architecture) to 
> Informational RFC
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious why section 3.4 does not consider the MAC Address as a 
> possible identifier?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Bob Harold
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:56 PM The IESG <iesg-secret...@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> >  The IESG has received a request from the Captive Portal Interaction WG
> >  (capport) to consider the following document: - 'CAPPORT Architecture'
> >  <draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08.txt> as Informational RFC
> > 
> >  The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
> >  comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> > last-c...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-05-25. Exceptionally, comments may
> >  be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the 
> > beginning
> >  of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> > 
> >  Abstract
> > 
> > 
> >  This document describes a CAPPORT architecture. DHCP or Router
> >  Advertisements, an optional signaling protocol, and an HTTP API are
> >  used to provide the solution. The role of Provisioning Domains
> >  (PvDs) is described.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  The file can be obtained via
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-architecture/ 
> > <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1yVzqJ3UqY3xwLQUGHinMzu-7twa12PiLIN7EN50B62FLD0cXno02n3f_Qw7DSpKpG96CA7TKBLzu9xzC6TVQejhSfGo-jrF8DNmSa3LVszDOuk89O1tF28heTpZxo-Zl4Kzk3DxQoD5Hc8fDnwaLz69x04aBTgzTGR2Tf9ZMouiJgl4PjT97QOV7tu7viXpNVyNfM-2molaELtIJWJd00DqIJTzR2Hap7yETyceSjQTihOQh7tPi056W8nOWCQ-MxwbxsGzR5V37Soo1SFiKSaR_KHKYhK_NLd4ys-MQ_bKZmZiS_YEiEQX_q0lLjmFgTrqjGvQxzlOj0gwI4zthZQ/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-capport-architecture%2F>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Captive-portals mailing list
> > Captive-portals@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals 
> > <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1luUyQqfEnnX25r5RvmYXc4O6JMe744dFK_VSJQto5cvtJVqN7Y0Ie7SkRZBkDnAUWnL8L3b4ifd7pTzCT-EsrZmZhOLnLmd_gJDefmDNmw8a8wnbkHiR12asEIcSP9COhQWmnSY75DStoZ7N9Bidi67LQuNxiFexwf8r9J6F6QHrpMpgDgnqiyNKBaJcIC6GmF8UsF3j95f2eFjpdr_0ttHQuXj_XrxTJebBxaS3EdYg8OZsH713lH0DH-VYJ0a_IXiATDxiGaA7gvKppncYKLUo1Pi-xZ7HgL6prLTkzjLEwRFRGlYdkwrDLKV6zUZcbT23_4lyApm-XMaOQo4KZEFyQOebJB-U33Nrqn2nO7w/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcaptive-portals>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>

_______________________________________________
Captive-portals mailing list
Captive-portals@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals

Reply via email to