Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09: (with COMMENT)
Martin, Thanks again for the review. Responses inline below. On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 02:05, Martin Duke via Datatracker wrote: > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09: No Objection > > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > After further discussion, I see that draft-09 does indeed address my Discuss - > the user-portal-url is optional in practice, just something the api design has > to cover. > > 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. > In version 09 we've replaced all mentions of "Captive Portal Server" with User Portal. Similarly, we ensured that we were consistent with its use throughout the document, so "web portal" has become "user portal". > After Figure 1, this seems to be consistently called the “web portal” (sec 2.6 > and 4). In the API doc it is called a "user portal." It would be great to > unify > the terminology across the documents as a whole. We've fixed up the diagram and the document as a whole to use "user portal", which is consistent with the API. > > Thanks again, 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-09: (with COMMENT)
Martin Duke 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: -- After further discussion, I see that draft-09 does indeed address my Discuss - the user-portal-url is optional in practice, just something the api design has to cover. 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). In the API doc it is called a "user portal." It would be great to unify the terminology across the documents as a whole. ___ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
