[Captive-portals] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: 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-rfc7710bis/ -- COMMENT: -- Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read. I really like the signaling of 'no captive portal'. Please find below one non-blocking COMMENT (but you know the story) and 2 nits. Please also address all Suresh's comments in his IoT review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07-iotdir-telechat-krishnan-2020-06-11/ I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 2.2 == In "should not be provisioned", I would suggest to use the normative "SHOULD". == NITS == -- Abstract -- Not all users of a captive portal are 'customers', they can be guests, students, employees, ... suggest to use 'users' (and even in the world of IoT). -- Section 2 -- Authors, being English natives, are probably correct but " should not be provisioned via IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA options." looks weird to m; why not " should be provisioned via neither IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA options." ? ___ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
Re: [Captive-portals] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: (with COMMENT)
> -- Section 2.2 == > In "should not be provisioned", I would suggest to use the normative "SHOULD". Good catch. Done. > == NITS == > > -- Abstract -- > Not all users of a captive portal are 'customers', they can be guests, > students, employees, ... suggest to use 'users' (and even in the world of > IoT). Agreed. > -- Section 2 -- > Authors, being English natives, are probably correct but " should not be > provisioned via IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA options." looks weird to m; why not " > should be provisioned via neither IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA > options." ? You're right, this text is weird -- and it's my fault. I've change it in github [1] to be: The maximum length of the URI that can be carried in IPv4 DHCP is 255 bytes, so URIs longer than 255 bytes SHOULD NOT be provisioned by any of the IPv6 options described in this document. I debated adding a qualifier statement on the end to the effect of: ", unless it is known that DHCPv4 is never used on this network", but I did not go that far. Thanks, -ek [1] https://github.com/capport-wg/7710bis/commit/ca984eecdf770dc2a52b7d98e40d93fb61c827fd ___ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
[Captive-portals] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: 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-rfc7710bis/ -- COMMENT: -- Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read. I really like the signaling of 'no captive portal'. Please find below one non-blocking COMMENT (but you know the story) and 2 nits. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 2.2 == In "should not be provisioned", I would suggest to use the normative "SHOULD". == NITS == -- Abstract -- Not all users of a captive portal are 'customers', they can be guests, students, employees, ... suggest to use 'users' (and even in the world of IoT). -- Section 2 -- Authors, being English natives, are probably correct but " should not be provisioned via IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA options." looks weird to m; why not " should be provisioned via neither IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA options." ? ___ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
