One thing I realized that we didn't discuss in 7710bis, and didn't really discuss here either, is the issue of devices attached to routers which are themselves on the link with the provisioning service.
Such clients would not have a way to receive an RA option nor any of the DHCP options since we didn't say what routers that observe these on a network should do (e.g. routers should/may include verbatim the 7710bis options in any of the applicable mechanisms for downstream clients). The section 2.5 captive portal signal might be able to come to the rescue here, but as we don't have such a thing. But...maybe that's a separate document? On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 5:11 PM Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote: > The editors of draft-ietf-capport-architecture have put in a huge amount > of work over the past few weeks in addressing the review comments. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09 > > As there have been quite a few changes, I would like to request that > people take a brief look again before we proceed. I've been watching > closely, and the changes look good, but I would like to confirm. The > changes are: > > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09.txt > > Please send comments before 2020-08-16. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
