Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. _______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
