Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: (with COMMENT)
Thanks Kyle. I had to move this to a DISCUSS based on the inconsistent requirements with -api, but it sounds like this is about to be resolved. On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:05 AM Kyle Larose wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for the review! > > Responses inline > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 01:49, Martin Duke via Datatracker > wrote: > > > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: No Objection > > > > > > > -- > > COMMENT: > > -- > > > > I found the terminology around “Captive Portal API server” and “Captive > Portal > > Server” to be a little confusing, as these are similar terms. The latter > also > > doesn’t get its own discussion in Section 2 and is confusingly called > the “web > > portal server” in Figure 1. > > > > > The Captive Portal API Server is the server hosting the Captive Portal > API. The Captive Portal Server is the server hosting the page(s) used > to communicate with the user visually via some form of client. > > I think, given your comments in the API review, and of the other > working group members who commented there, that we should use Tommy's > suggestion of "User Portal" in place of Captive Portal Server. That > should hopefully remove any confusion caused by the similarity between > the two terms. > > > After Figure 1, this seems to be consistently called the “web portal” > (sec 2.6 > > and 4). It would be great to unify the terminology across the document > as a > > whole. > > > > I agree. That's a mistake; the document should be consistent. We'll fix > that up. > > Thanks! > > Kyle > ___ 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-architecture-08: (with COMMENT)
Hi Martin, Thanks for the review! Responses inline On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 01:49, Martin Duke via Datatracker wrote: > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: No Objection > > > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > I found the terminology around “Captive Portal API server” and “Captive Portal > Server” to be a little confusing, as these are similar terms. The latter also > doesn’t get its own discussion in Section 2 and is confusingly called the “web > portal server” in Figure 1. > The Captive Portal API Server is the server hosting the Captive Portal API. The Captive Portal Server is the server hosting the page(s) used to communicate with the user visually via some form of client. I think, given your comments in the API review, and of the other working group members who commented there, that we should use Tommy's suggestion of "User Portal" in place of Captive Portal Server. That should hopefully remove any confusion caused by the similarity between the two terms. > After Figure 1, this seems to be consistently called the “web portal” (sec 2.6 > and 4). It would be great to unify the terminology across the document as a > whole. > I agree. That's a mistake; the document should be consistent. We'll fix that up. Thanks! Kyle ___ 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-architecture-08: (with COMMENT)
Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: 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: -- I found the terminology around “Captive Portal API server” and “Captive Portal Server” to be a little confusing, as these are similar terms. The latter also doesn’t get its own discussion in Section 2 and is confusingly called the “web portal server” in Figure 1. After Figure 1, this seems to be consistently called the “web portal” (sec 2.6 and 4). It would be great to unify the terminology across the document as a whole. ___ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
