Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT

[Tommy Pauly]

I have a similar initial reaction to Erik's. Adding another URL that 
effectively is just another user portal, but meant to be used at certain times, 
adds a lot of complexity. I'm certainly not ruling out adding such a key as 
need arises, but I'd hesitate to make it part of the initial set.

Particularly, if we start seeing the "venue URL" be the main landing page we 
redirect people to once they're logged it, it kind of makes sense to let the 
user portal be the status/remediation/payment page.

Tommy

> On Jan 13, 2020, at 4:06 PM, Erik Kline  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:26, Heng Liu  > wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Erik Kline  > wrote:
> Why should this different from the user-portal-url?  It seems to me that 
> either the user-portal-url would remediation UI elements or it wouldn't.
> Some CP vendors want to specify a different URL specifically tailored for 
> remediation of a session. By providing a 3rd URL, we can accommodate this use 
> case.
> 
> If the remediation URL is available but the user (somehow) navigates to the 
> user-portal-url, what do they see?
> 
>  
> With this 3rd URL, if the bytes/time does expire should the OS try to launch 
> an interaction the remediation URL and then fallback to the user URL if it 
> failed to load?  In which case, why not just leave all interaction with the 
> user-portal-url?
> if a remediation URL is present, and if it fails to load for whatever reason, 
> no need to fallback to user portal URL: CP vendor should make sure the 
> remediation URL is working properly (this is similar to user-portal url 
> should work properly, if not, there is no other way for user to clear a CP)
> 
> I guess I'm just trying to be mindful of one person's flexibility is another 
> person's complexity.  I think this just doubles the number of URLs that the 
> CP vendor needs to make sure function correctly.
> 
> If the vendor doesn't implement a means to extend your session without 
> completely shutting everything down and forcing to the user to restart the 
> interaction flow anew, I could see that an OS would not want to bother the 
> user with an interaction where they couldn't actually do anything useful.  
> But that might suggest a boolean capability, rather than a new URL 
> (remediation-supported={true|false})?
> A boolean field could also be a positive signal to notify UE that remediation 
> is possible, but this would prevent CP vendors from using different URLs for 
> remediation.
> 
> (As mentioned in the initial thread, this URL approach is also taken by the 
> Passpoint release 2.0 spec to signal remediation process.)
> 
> regards,
> Heng
> ___
> 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 
> 
___
Captive-portals mailing list
Captive-portals@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals

Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT

[Erik Kline]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:26, Heng Liu  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Erik Kline  wrote:
>
>> Why should this different from the user-portal-url?  It seems to me that
>> either the user-portal-url would remediation UI elements or it wouldn't.
>>
> Some CP vendors want to specify a different URL specifically tailored for
> remediation of a session. By providing a 3rd URL, we can accommodate this
> use case.
>

If the remediation URL is available but the user (somehow) navigates to the
user-portal-url, what do they see?


>
>> With this 3rd URL, if the bytes/time does expire should the OS try to
>> launch an interaction the remediation URL and then fallback to the user URL
>> if it failed to load?  In which case, why not just leave all interaction
>> with the user-portal-url?
>>
> if a remediation URL is present, and if it fails to load for whatever
> reason, no need to fallback to user portal URL: CP vendor should make sure
> the remediation URL is working properly (this is similar to user-portal url
> should work properly, if not, there is no other way for user to clear a CP)
>

I guess I'm just trying to be mindful of one person's flexibility is
another person's complexity.  I think this just doubles the number of URLs
that the CP vendor needs to make sure function correctly.

If the vendor doesn't implement a means to extend your session without
>> completely shutting everything down and forcing to the user to restart the
>> interaction flow anew, I could see that an OS would not want to bother the
>> user with an interaction where they couldn't actually do anything useful.
>> But that might suggest a boolean capability, rather than a new URL
>> (remediation-supported={true|false})?
>>
> A boolean field could also be a positive signal to notify UE that
> remediation is possible, but this would prevent CP vendors from using
> different URLs for remediation.
>
> (As mentioned in the initial thread, this URL approach is also taken by
> the Passpoint release 2.0 spec to signal remediation process.)
>
> regards,
> Heng
> ___
> 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