Re: [Captive-portals] Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP / RA draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-03

2020-04-28 Thread Tirupachur Comerica, Subash 
Thank you Erik.

Thanks,
Subash

From: Erik Kline 
Reply-To: "e...@loon.com" 
Date: Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:21 PM
To: "Tirupachur Comerica, Subash" 
Cc: Erik Kline , Martin Thomson , 
captive-portals 
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP / RA 
draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-03

That seems reasonable to me. I've added a comment to 
https://github.com/capport-wg/7710bis/issues/20 to remind myself.  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  
‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌ 
 ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌
External (e...@loon.com<mailto:e...@loon.com>)
Report This 
Email<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/report?id=Y29tbXNjb3BlL3N1YmFzaC50aXJ1cGFjaHVyY29tZXJpY2FAY29tbXNjb3BlLmNvbS9kZjc5M2NkZTJjZjFjYzFlYWQ0ZTk4MzRiYTAyYzI0Ni8xNTg4MDI5NzAwLjk2#key=850c2ad3fbaf7de1573a58c6b57eb478>
  FAQ<https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/>  Protection by 
INKY<https://www.inky.com>

That seems reasonable to me.  I've added a comment to 
https://github.com/capport-wg/7710bis/issues/20<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1xQsAp7cATl8gPr-QWoi668m2GtFKavKqOx9sXK4NPslyNwT0GdzJAKpGTXL832Ekwf9rM-DhH99k0snjL_GVs0MlsP9HZtmh4ilSEsXKe4V1d1ZuwzJHtizR8evd7qs8fNmPrBRAtL3CMfn8oqx_26TkZv5XbEeH1h-PFkxq7_JO02LCixmFXWa5wm3A_1r_dTg6OiYZGalkIe82YqidLG7NAAqrw1q9Dp1GIqk7xtCAmHq_a6g9133-A8xf-Ri6ehxnF-aaITj0Yt8N365lzTMW9sxTx6TQ0CLJ7PKAQIBsOn4EG8KQV4L2tJotHsqvWTc6N9VtQU-bB6KTr5y3Ew/https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcapport-wg%2F7710bis%2Fissues%2F20>
 to remind myself.

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 16:08, Tirupachur Comerica, Subash 
mailto:subash.tirupachurcomer...@commscope.com>>
 wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for your quick response.
Good to know it is already taken care of.

Hi Erik,
Thanks, but it would be very handy next to the TLV formats (-:

Thanks,
Subash


From: Captive-portals 
mailto:captive-portals-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Erik Kline mailto:ek.i...@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:01 PM
To: Martin Thomson mailto:m...@lowentropy.net>>
Cc: captive-portals mailto:captive-portals@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP / RA 
draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-03

And the 255 byte URI limit is mentioned in section 2 (~3rd paragraph).

I guess if someone wants longer URIs they have to move to an IPv6-only network. 
 ;-)

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:54 PM Martin Thomson 
mailto:m...@lowentropy.net>> wrote:
Thanks for the input.  Apparently great minds think alike as another reviewer 
found the exact same shortcoming just days ago.  The next revision should have 
these fixed.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, at 05:07, Tirupachur Comerica, Subash wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was reviewing this draft and found a few missing text(sometimes
> obvious) enumerated below(missing text in *_bold underline_*)
>
> Section 2.1 IPv4 DHCP Option
>
>  o Code: The Captive-Portal DHCPv4 option (TBD) (one octet).
>
>  o Len: The length, in octets of the URI.*_(one octet)_*
>
> Section 2.2: IPv6 DHCP Option
>
>  o option-code: The Captive-Portal DHCPv6 option (103) (two octets).
>
>  o option-len: The length, in octets of the URI.*_(two octets) --?
> Please see question below_*
>
>  o URI: The contact URI for the captive portal that the user should
>
>  connect to (encoded following the rules in [RFC3986
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1DrhtknMvGSxXwxFONyWoHl0x3RW7O9lhyY2MvO7kekYqwa5WAARuLPf3vnfHvuN1Vk8X3US9s9qUMiMr91dRF7YCnTxzqLTh8FZdtcbV9c8f4Fz9mX0Ye_IiK2z90ivtQfDDD_q9dlxmDk9nB79xJNeStSioAtPBK7GPiN00nztu0xX4F3R-YxjyggE1_LnZiRDCiP6VmSu4zGA6Cne0yLizaMLRa8AHTsz6mu6B2Vb4--fTMRy4NijE1_Jv0p6UraT0dlWWvXvAtqVNYRPeWSldiUktyQVdq7jo8n8EBhmgFM0_Pg6DKjr73YAeoAqd9odm9LtZfoMZ0wsU8MeWGxE5O0mm9gCShDLAF50WWWA/https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc3986>>]).
>
>
> - *Question on the above option-len: If this is two octets in IPv6 DHCP
> option, then the URI can be longer then 255. Option-len-value <=255,
> correct?*
>
>
> Section 2.3: The Captive-Portal IPv6 RA Option
>
>  o Type: 37*_(one octet)_*
>
>  o Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option
>
>  (including the Type and Length fields) in units of 8 bytes.(*_one octet_*)
>
>  o URI: The contact URI for the captive portal that the user should
>
>  connect to. For the reasons described above, the implementer
>
>  might want to use an IP address literal instead of a DNS name.
>
>  This should be padded with NULL (0x0) to make the total option
>
>  length (including the Type and Length fields) a multiple of 8
>
>  bytes.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Subash
>
>
> ___
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org<mailto:Captive-portals@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.o

Re: [Captive-portals] Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP / RA draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-03

2020-04-27 Thread Erik Kline 
That seems reasonable to me.  I've added a comment to
https://github.com/capport-wg/7710bis/issues/20 to remind myself.

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 16:08, Tirupachur Comerica, Subash <
subash.tirupachurcomer...@commscope.com> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> Thanks for your quick response.
>
> Good to know it is already taken care of.
>
>
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> Thanks, but it would be very handy next to the TLV formats (-:
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Subash
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Captive-portals  on behalf of
> Erik Kline 
> *Date: *Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:01 PM
> *To: *Martin Thomson 
> *Cc: *captive-portals 
> *Subject: *Re: [Captive-portals] Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP /
> RA draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-03
>
>
>
> And the 255 byte URI limit is mentioned in section 2 (~3rd paragraph).
>
>
>
> I guess if someone wants longer URIs they have to move to an IPv6-only
> network.  ;-)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:54 PM Martin Thomson  wrote:
>
> Thanks for the input.  Apparently great minds think alike as another
> reviewer found the exact same shortcoming just days ago.  The next revision
> should have these fixed.
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, at 05:07, Tirupachur Comerica, Subash wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was reviewing this draft and found a few missing text(sometimes
> > obvious) enumerated below(missing text in *_bold underline_*)
> >
> > Section 2.1 IPv4 DHCP Option
> >
> >  o Code: The Captive-Portal DHCPv4 option (TBD) (one octet).
> >
> >  o Len: The length, in octets of the URI.*_(one octet)_*
> >
> > Section 2.2: IPv6 DHCP Option
> >
> >  o option-code: The Captive-Portal DHCPv6 option (103) (two octets).
> >
> >  o option-len: The length, in octets of the URI.*_(two octets) --?
> > Please see question below_*
> >
> >  o URI: The contact URI for the captive portal that the user should
> >
> >  connect to (encoded following the rules in [RFC3986
> > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986
> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1DrhtknMvGSxXwxFONyWoHl0x3RW7O9lhyY2MvO7kekYqwa5WAARuLPf3vnfHvuN1Vk8X3US9s9qUMiMr91dRF7YCnTxzqLTh8FZdtcbV9c8f4Fz9mX0Ye_IiK2z90ivtQfDDD_q9dlxmDk9nB79xJNeStSioAtPBK7GPiN00nztu0xX4F3R-YxjyggE1_LnZiRDCiP6VmSu4zGA6Cne0yLizaMLRa8AHTsz6mu6B2Vb4--fTMRy4NijE1_Jv0p6UraT0dlWWvXvAtqVNYRPeWSldiUktyQVdq7jo8n8EBhmgFM0_Pg6DKjr73YAeoAqd9odm9LtZfoMZ0wsU8MeWGxE5O0mm9gCShDLAF50WWWA/https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc3986>
> >]).
> >
> >
> > - *Question on the above option-len: If this is two octets in IPv6 DHCP
> > option, then the URI can be longer then 255. Option-len-value <=255,
> > correct?*
> >
> >
> > Section 2.3: The Captive-Portal IPv6 RA Option
> >
> >  o Type: 37*_(one octet)_*
> >
> >  o Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option
> >
> >  (including the Type and Length fields) in units of 8 bytes.(*_one
> octet_*)
> >
> >  o URI: The contact URI for the captive portal that the user should
> >
> >  connect to. For the reasons described above, the implementer
> >
> >  might want to use an IP address literal instead of a DNS name.
> >
> >  This should be padded with NULL (0x0) to make the total option
> >
> >  length (including the Type and Length fields) a multiple of 8
> >
> >  bytes.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Subash
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Captive-portals mailing list
> > Captive-portals@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1tJvH-_AukQ6qvN16te7iRBGRW-iDeGIOwIWpTIdjeVnmqD2uy0rRtd9g5bZdn79YsnXiJb0rFynoh1YMs0CUFErgSmZqQKlOb_x4wEfTDpgUsR6Vl1K-dlmbB5h-qkkmm3luW-aSso5jygsNyy3_YkhAjf8CzGmUDxVfl2OZb3BqCSIHfm6cnZEeUFREGCcjL2lP_h6F5mTF8MD-OGrb-Oj4o6WHH-WJT72DFz7egBnI3VkSDQiSD9tbXRTGxVlm9gcesD9iXs944jEHmQFD6S0_XlpmXR-Mp9Hg9fY0PfE7hc_ww9WsFJ4gStx82yvxAa1Ni16TxAxTYqUkhlK0JA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcaptive-portals>
> >
>
> ___
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1tJvH-_AukQ6qvN16te7iRBGRW-iDeGIOwIWpTIdjeVnmqD2uy0rRtd9g5bZdn79YsnXiJb0rFynoh1YMs0CUFErgSmZqQKlOb_x4wEfTDpgUsR6Vl1K-dlmbB5h-qkkmm3luW-aSso5jygsNyy3_YkhAjf8CzGmUDxVfl2OZb3BqCSIHfm6cnZEeUFREGCcjL2lP_h6F5mTF8MD-OGrb-Oj4o6WHH-WJT72DFz7egBnI3VkSDQiSD9tbXRTGxVlm9gcesD9iXs944jEHmQFD6S0_XlpmXR-Mp9Hg9fY0PfE7hc_ww9WsFJ4gStx82yvxAa1Ni16TxAxTYqUkhlK0JA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcaptive-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] Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP / RA draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-03

2020-04-27 Thread Tirupachur Comerica, Subash 
Hi Martin,
Thanks for your quick response.
Good to know it is already taken care of.

Hi Erik,
Thanks, but it would be very handy next to the TLV formats (-:

Thanks,
Subash


From: Captive-portals  on behalf of Erik 
Kline 
Date: Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:01 PM
To: Martin Thomson 
Cc: captive-portals 
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP / RA 
draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-03

And the 255 byte URI limit is mentioned in section 2 (~3rd paragraph). I guess 
if someone wants longer URIs they have to move to an IPv6-only network. ;-)  ‌  
‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌
External (ek.i...@gmail.com<mailto:ek.i...@gmail.com>)
Report This 
Email<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/report?id=Y29tbXNjb3BlL3N1YmFzaC50aXJ1cGFjaHVyY29tZXJpY2FAY29tbXNjb3BlLmNvbS8zYTNmMTExMzg0MDA0NzRiZTk5OGM2MWY2NzU1Mzc0Ni8xNTg4MDI4NDg5Ljk3#key=d3b46fe4b68f375f8fd8e71015ee2386>
  FAQ<https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/>  Protection by 
INKY<https://www.inky.com>

And the 255 byte URI limit is mentioned in section 2 (~3rd paragraph).

I guess if someone wants longer URIs they have to move to an IPv6-only network. 
 ;-)

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:54 PM Martin Thomson 
mailto:m...@lowentropy.net>> wrote:
Thanks for the input.  Apparently great minds think alike as another reviewer 
found the exact same shortcoming just days ago.  The next revision should have 
these fixed.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, at 05:07, Tirupachur Comerica, Subash wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was reviewing this draft and found a few missing text(sometimes
> obvious) enumerated below(missing text in *_bold underline_*)
>
> Section 2.1 IPv4 DHCP Option
>
>  o Code: The Captive-Portal DHCPv4 option (TBD) (one octet).
>
>  o Len: The length, in octets of the URI.*_(one octet)_*
>
> Section 2.2: IPv6 DHCP Option
>
>  o option-code: The Captive-Portal DHCPv6 option (103) (two octets).
>
>  o option-len: The length, in octets of the URI.*_(two octets) --?
> Please see question below_*
>
>  o URI: The contact URI for the captive portal that the user should
>
>  connect to (encoded following the rules in [RFC3986
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1DrhtknMvGSxXwxFONyWoHl0x3RW7O9lhyY2MvO7kekYqwa5WAARuLPf3vnfHvuN1Vk8X3US9s9qUMiMr91dRF7YCnTxzqLTh8FZdtcbV9c8f4Fz9mX0Ye_IiK2z90ivtQfDDD_q9dlxmDk9nB79xJNeStSioAtPBK7GPiN00nztu0xX4F3R-YxjyggE1_LnZiRDCiP6VmSu4zGA6Cne0yLizaMLRa8AHTsz6mu6B2Vb4--fTMRy4NijE1_Jv0p6UraT0dlWWvXvAtqVNYRPeWSldiUktyQVdq7jo8n8EBhmgFM0_Pg6DKjr73YAeoAqd9odm9LtZfoMZ0wsU8MeWGxE5O0mm9gCShDLAF50WWWA/https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc3986>>]).
>
>
> - *Question on the above option-len: If this is two octets in IPv6 DHCP
> option, then the URI can be longer then 255. Option-len-value <=255,
> correct?*
>
>
> Section 2.3: The Captive-Portal IPv6 RA Option
>
>  o Type: 37*_(one octet)_*
>
>  o Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option
>
>  (including the Type and Length fields) in units of 8 bytes.(*_one octet_*)
>
>  o URI: The contact URI for the captive portal that the user should
>
>  connect to. For the reasons described above, the implementer
>
>  might want to use an IP address literal instead of a DNS name.
>
>  This should be padded with NULL (0x0) to make the total option
>
>  length (including the Type and Length fields) a multiple of 8
>
>  bytes.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Subash
>
>
> ___
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org<mailto:Captive-portals@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1tJvH-_AukQ6qvN16te7iRBGRW-iDeGIOwIWpTIdjeVnmqD2uy0rRtd9g5bZdn79YsnXiJb0rFynoh1YMs0CUFErgSmZqQKlOb_x4wEfTDpgUsR6Vl1K-dlmbB5h-qkkmm3luW-aSso5jygsNyy3_YkhAjf8CzGmUDxVfl2OZb3BqCSIHfm6cnZEeUFREGCcjL2lP_h6F5mTF8MD-OGrb-Oj4o6WHH-WJT72DFz7egBnI3VkSDQiSD9tbXRTGxVlm9gcesD9iXs944jEHmQFD6S0_XlpmXR-Mp9Hg9fY0PfE7hc_ww9WsFJ4gStx82yvxAa1Ni16TxAxTYqUkhlK0JA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcaptive-portals>
>

___
Captive-portals mailing list
Captive-portals@ietf.org<mailto:Captive-portals@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1tJvH-_AukQ6qvN16te7iRBGRW-iDeGIOwIWpTIdjeVnmqD2uy0rRtd9g5bZdn79YsnXiJb0rFynoh1YMs0CUFErgSmZqQKlOb_x4wEfTDpgUsR6Vl1K-dlmbB5h-qkkmm3luW-aSso5jygsNyy3_YkhAjf8CzGmUDxVfl2OZb3BqCSIHfm6cnZEeUFREGCcjL2lP_h6F5mTF8MD-OGrb-Oj4o6WHH-WJT72DFz7egBnI3VkSDQiSD9tbXRTGxVlm9gcesD9iXs944jEHmQFD6S0_XlpmXR-Mp9Hg9fY0PfE7hc_ww9WsFJ4gStx82yvxAa1Ni16TxAxTYqUkhlK0JA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcaptive-portals>
___
Captive-portals mailing list
Captive-portals@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals

Re: [Captive-portals] Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP / RA draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-03

2020-04-27 Thread Erik Kline 
And the 255 byte URI limit is mentioned in section 2 (~3rd paragraph).

I guess if someone wants longer URIs they have to move to an IPv6-only
network.  ;-)

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:54 PM Martin Thomson  wrote:

> Thanks for the input.  Apparently great minds think alike as another
> reviewer found the exact same shortcoming just days ago.  The next revision
> should have these fixed.
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, at 05:07, Tirupachur Comerica, Subash wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was reviewing this draft and found a few missing text(sometimes
> > obvious) enumerated below(missing text in *_bold underline_*)
> >
> > Section 2.1 IPv4 DHCP Option
> >
> >  o Code: The Captive-Portal DHCPv4 option (TBD) (one octet).
> >
> >  o Len: The length, in octets of the URI.*_(one octet)_*
> >
> > Section 2.2: IPv6 DHCP Option
> >
> >  o option-code: The Captive-Portal DHCPv6 option (103) (two octets).
> >
> >  o option-len: The length, in octets of the URI.*_(two octets) --?
> > Please see question below_*
> >
> >  o URI: The contact URI for the captive portal that the user should
> >
> >  connect to (encoded following the rules in [RFC3986
> > ]).
> >
> >
> > - *Question on the above option-len: If this is two octets in IPv6 DHCP
> > option, then the URI can be longer then 255. Option-len-value <=255,
> > correct?*
> >
> >
> > Section 2.3: The Captive-Portal IPv6 RA Option
> >
> >  o Type: 37*_(one octet)_*
> >
> >  o Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option
> >
> >  (including the Type and Length fields) in units of 8 bytes.(*_one
> octet_*)
> >
> >  o URI: The contact URI for the captive portal that the user should
> >
> >  connect to. For the reasons described above, the implementer
> >
> >  might want to use an IP address literal instead of a DNS name.
> >
> >  This should be padded with NULL (0x0) to make the total option
> >
> >  length (including the Type and Length fields) a multiple of 8
> >
> >  bytes.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Subash
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP / RA draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-03

2020-04-27 Thread Martin Thomson 
Thanks for the input.  Apparently great minds think alike as another reviewer 
found the exact same shortcoming just days ago.  The next revision should have 
these fixed.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, at 05:07, Tirupachur Comerica, Subash wrote:
>  
> Hi,
> 
> I was reviewing this draft and found a few missing text(sometimes 
> obvious) enumerated below(missing text in *_bold underline_*)
> 
> Section 2.1 IPv4 DHCP Option
> 
>  o Code: The Captive-Portal DHCPv4 option (TBD) (one octet).
> 
>  o Len: The length, in octets of the URI.*_(one octet)_*
> 
> Section 2.2: IPv6 DHCP Option
> 
>  o option-code: The Captive-Portal DHCPv6 option (103) (two octets).
> 
>  o option-len: The length, in octets of the URI.*_(two octets) --? 
> Please see question below_*
> 
>  o URI: The contact URI for the captive portal that the user should
> 
>  connect to (encoded following the rules in [RFC3986 
> ]).
> 
> 
> - *Question on the above option-len: If this is two octets in IPv6 DHCP 
> option, then the URI can be longer then 255. Option-len-value <=255, 
> correct?*
> 
> 
> Section 2.3: The Captive-Portal IPv6 RA Option
> 
>  o Type: 37*_(one octet)_*
> 
>  o Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option
> 
>  (including the Type and Length fields) in units of 8 bytes.(*_one octet_*)
> 
>  o URI: The contact URI for the captive portal that the user should
> 
>  connect to. For the reasons described above, the implementer
> 
>  might want to use an IP address literal instead of a DNS name.
> 
>  This should be padded with NULL (0x0) to make the total option
> 
>  length (including the Type and Length fields) a multiple of 8
> 
>  bytes.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Subash
> 
> 
> ___
> 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