Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke]

Thanks!

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 8:50 AM Tommy Pauly  wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> Thanks for the updated review. I’ve incorporated these comments in our
> GitHub:
>
>
> https://github.com/capport-wg/api/commit/daeba897a1d50229b86f6ec23a026aaa725bf672
>
> Thanks,
> Tommy
>
> On Jun 8, 2020, at 8:08 AM, Martin Duke via Datatracker 
> wrote:
>
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-capport-api-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-api/
>
>
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> This document is clearly written. Thanks.
>
> I am also confused by this sentence at the end of section 4.1 about failed
> authentication: “It may still be possible for the user to access the
> network by
> being redirected to a web portal.”
>
> I suggest “...access the network by redirecting a clear text webpage to a
> web
> portal.”  I was a bit confused by the original wording.
>
> As I said in the architecture review, the term for the user portal keeps
> changing. Over there it’s called a “Captive Portal Server” and a “web
> portal
> server”. Here it’s a “user-portal.” The authors of the two docs should get
> together and agree on a term.
>
> One nit:
> s/extenal/external
>
>
>
>
>
___
Captive-portals mailing list
Captive-portals@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals

Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with COMMENT)

[Tommy Pauly]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the updated review. I’ve incorporated these comments in our GitHub:

https://github.com/capport-wg/api/commit/daeba897a1d50229b86f6ec23a026aaa725bf672
 


Thanks,
Tommy

> On Jun 8, 2020, at 8:08 AM, Martin Duke via Datatracker  
> wrote:
> 
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-capport-api-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-api/
> 
> 
> 
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
> 
> This document is clearly written. Thanks.
> 
> I am also confused by this sentence at the end of section 4.1 about failed
> authentication: “It may still be possible for the user to access the network 
> by
> being redirected to a web portal.”
> 
> I suggest “...access the network by redirecting a clear text webpage to a web
> portal.”  I was a bit confused by the original wording.
> 
> As I said in the architecture review, the term for the user portal keeps
> changing. Over there it’s called a “Captive Portal Server” and a “web portal
> server”. Here it’s a “user-portal.” The authors of the two docs should get
> together and agree on a term.
> 
> One nit:
> s/extenal/external
> 
> 
> 

___
Captive-portals mailing list
Captive-portals@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals

[Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-capport-api-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-api/



--
COMMENT:
--

This document is clearly written. Thanks.

I am also confused by this sentence at the end of section 4.1 about failed
authentication: “It may still be possible for the user to access the network by
being redirected to a web portal.”

I suggest “...access the network by redirecting a clear text webpage to a web
portal.”  I was a bit confused by the original wording.

As I said in the architecture review, the term for the user portal keeps
changing. Over there it’s called a “Captive Portal Server” and a “web portal
server”. Here it’s a “user-portal.” The authors of the two docs should get
together and agree on a term.

One nit:
s/extenal/external



___
Captive-portals mailing list
Captive-portals@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals