Hi Benjamin, Thanks for the review. Responses inline below.
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 19:38, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > 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/? > 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. > 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. > 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 _______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
