Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT

[Dan Wing]

To that point, the remediation URL only works if the client and the CP are in 
sync; that is, if the client wondered off to another network for a while (LTE, 
because of whatever reason) and then re-connected to WiFi, is the remediation 
URL supposed to be visited because the wall-clock time expired, or not visited 
because the time-on-network has not yet expired.  The CP may have abandoned 
that client, figuring it went away permanently when it disconnected from WiFi.

-d


> On Jan 13, 2020, at 5:02 PM, Tommy Pauly  
> wrote:
> 
> I have a similar initial reaction to Erik's. Adding another URL that 
> effectively is just another user portal, but meant to be used at certain 
> times, adds a lot of complexity. I'm certainly not ruling out adding such a 
> key as need arises, but I'd hesitate to make it part of the initial set.
> 
> Particularly, if we start seeing the "venue URL" be the main landing page we 
> redirect people to once they're logged it, it kind of makes sense to let the 
> user portal be the status/remediation/payment page.
> 
> Tommy
> 
>> On Jan 13, 2020, at 4:06 PM, Erik Kline > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:26, Heng Liu 
>> mailto:40google@dmarc.ietf.org>> 
>> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Erik Kline > > wrote:
>> Why should this different from the user-portal-url?  It seems to me that 
>> either the user-portal-url would remediation UI elements or it wouldn't.
>> Some CP vendors want to specify a different URL specifically tailored for 
>> remediation of a session. By providing a 3rd URL, we can accommodate this 
>> use case.
>> 
>> If the remediation URL is available but the user (somehow) navigates to the 
>> user-portal-url, what do they see?
>> 
>>  
>> With this 3rd URL, if the bytes/time does expire should the OS try to launch 
>> an interaction the remediation URL and then fallback to the user URL if it 
>> failed to load?  In which case, why not just leave all interaction with the 
>> user-portal-url?
>> if a remediation URL is present, and if it fails to load for whatever 
>> reason, no need to fallback to user portal URL: CP vendor should make sure 
>> the remediation URL is working properly (this is similar to user-portal url 
>> should work properly, if not, there is no other way for user to clear a CP)
>> 
>> I guess I'm just trying to be mindful of one person's flexibility is another 
>> person's complexity.  I think this just doubles the number of URLs that the 
>> CP vendor needs to make sure function correctly.
>> 
>> If the vendor doesn't implement a means to extend your session without 
>> completely shutting everything down and forcing to the user to restart the 
>> interaction flow anew, I could see that an OS would not want to bother the 
>> user with an interaction where they couldn't actually do anything useful.  
>> But that might suggest a boolean capability, rather than a new URL 
>> (remediation-supported={true|false})?
>> A boolean field could also be a positive signal to notify UE that 
>> remediation is possible, but this would prevent CP vendors from using 
>> different URLs for remediation.
>> 
>> (As mentioned in the initial thread, this URL approach is also taken by the 
>> Passpoint release 2.0 spec to signal remediation process.)
>> 
>> regards,
>> Heng
>> ___
>> 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

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

Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT

[Martin Thomson]

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, at 17:54, Michael Richardson wrote:
> There are a number of locations where you get 20 minutes free, and then you
> have to purchase the extension. That doesn't seem to fit into remedial to
> me. (Montreal Airport comes to mind)
> 
> I guess such locations have an incentive to put something other than "you're
> logged in" on that page. What should such a location do? Do they say the
> offer extensions, or not?

I don't see why not.  Now you might not be inclined to sell your first-born 
child [1] to continue, but it's not like the option isn't there.

[1] ...or kidney, or whatever more reasonable terms the network might offer.

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

Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT

[Tommy Pauly]

Lorenzo, my impression is that the User Portal URL (already distinct from the 
Venue URL) should cover that use case; or at least we should encourage it to be 
so. Once a user is logged in, the page generally won’t just show a new log in. 
If for some reason the renew page needs to be a different URL, it could simply 
redirect the user portal URL whenever the user is logged in.

If we have three URLs, then we’d have two URLs, the User Portal the new Extend 
URL, that would each only be useful at certain mutually exclusive times: one 
before log in and one while logged in. That seems like an easy opportunity to 
encourage portal designers to have a single page, so we don’t have a UI in 
android or iOS that ever presents a link that takes you to a useless “you’re 
logged in” page.

I’m all for having the venue URL be distinct, but let’s just use a Boolean to 
indicate if the user portal URL is a useful URL while logged in or not. 

Tommy

> On Jan 19, 2020, at 8:50 PM, Lorenzo Colitti  wrote:
> 
> I do think something is needed here because we don't want the device
> to put up a "you're running out of time, please click here to extend"
> prompt/notification, if tapping that prompt goes to a page that just
> says "you're logged in" without allowing the user to extend. If the
> network doesn't support extending sessions, then the device should not
> display the prompt. So we should give the network a way to express via
> the API whether it's possible to extend the user's time or not.
> 
> Once we do decide to have something like that in the API, ISTM that a
> separate URL is more useful than just a boolean. Whether the URL is
> present or not gives you the boolean; the content of the URL makes it
> easier for network operators because it means they can provide a
> specific "manage my connection" page that is different from the login
> page. The operator could of course decide what to display based on the
> login state of the user; this just makes it easier.
> 
> But as long as this is not the same as the venue URL, that works for
> me. We do want it to be separate, because we expect most operators
> will primarily want to surface the venue URL, and we don't want them
> to have to make a choice between surfacing the venue URL and making
> the session easy to extend.
> 
> Cheers,
> Lorenzo
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:25 PM Remi NGUYEN VAN
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> As far as the Android implementation is concerned, I think it would be nice 
>> to have capport API support in the next (android R) version; however due to 
>> deadlines, it's going to be harder for me to change the attributes read from 
>> the API very soon.
>> Following this discussion my current plan is to support an optional 
>> "remediation-supported" boolean, and only prompt users to extend their 
>> session shortly before it expires when it is set to true. Hopefully the 
>> boolean can be added to the current draft or in a future, separate draft 
>> considering that we seem to roughly agree on it, but if the group eventually 
>> realizes that it wants to go in another direction, we'll update behavior in 
>> subsequent releases.
>> 
>> Does that make sense ?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Remi
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:30 AM Erik Kline  wrote:
>>> 
>>> If there's working group consensus to add it to the current API draft then 
>>> definitely add it.  Otherwise, probably a separate document that would need 
>>> a call for wg adoption.
>>> 
>>> Separately, and hopefully without starting a massive bikeshed, is there a 
>>> more apt word than "remediation"?  I think this specific word carries the 
>>> connotation of "fixing an error" or "correcting damage" and it seems like 
>>> the use here would be broader.  But perhaps I'm completely mistaken.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:21, Heng Liu  wrote:
 
 It seems most are comfortable with adding a remediation-capable boolean, 
 which is simpler than another url while also making it explicit on whether 
 remediation is provided or not, so UE could display different 
 notifications.
 
 Anyone have any objections on adding this boolean please?
 
 If not, what's the next step on moving this forward please?
 
 Thanks,
 Heng
 
 On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:38 PM Tommy Pauly  wrote:
> 
> Any captive portal that is newly adopting the CAPPORT API will hopefully 
> be testing the setup in the new model, and will have to think about which 
> URLs to map to different user experiences.
> 
> A page that only says "you're logged in!", and has no way of adding more 
> time, etc, is in my opinion a relatively useless page. If we provide a 
> separate URL for remediation, it would seem to encourage such a design. 
> Not including this would hopefully urge the portal design to a cleaner 
> model.
> 
> I do think the boolean is nice for highlighting to the captive portal 
> deployer that they should think about 

Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT

[Remi NGUYEN VAN]

I also thought "remediation-supported" was not ideal but could not come up
with a better name. "can-extend-session" does sound clearer to me.

Cheers,

Remi


On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 1:53 AM Tommy Pauly  wrote:

> I'm fine with adding the boolean to the main draft. I discussed this a bit
> with Heng yesterday, and we discussed naming it something like
> "can-extend-session". Thoughts on that name?
>
> Thanks,
> Tommy
>
> On Jan 16, 2020, at 11:25 PM, Remi NGUYEN VAN <
> reminv=40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> As far as the Android implementation is concerned, I think it would be
> nice to have capport API support in the next (android R) version; however
> due to deadlines, it's going to be harder for me to change the attributes
> read from the API very soon.
> Following this discussion my current plan is to support an optional
> "remediation-supported" boolean, and only prompt users to extend their
> session shortly before it expires when it is set to true. Hopefully the
> boolean can be added to the current draft or in a future, separate draft
> considering that we seem to roughly agree on it, but if the group
> eventually realizes that it wants to go in another direction, we'll update
> behavior in subsequent releases.
>
> Does that make sense ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Remi
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:30 AM Erik Kline  wrote:
>
>> If there's working group consensus to add it to the current API draft
>> then definitely add it.  Otherwise, probably a separate document that would
>> need a call for wg adoption.
>>
>> Separately, and hopefully without starting a massive bikeshed, is there a
>> more apt word than "remediation"?  I think this specific word carries the
>> connotation of "fixing an error" or "correcting damage" and it seems like
>> the use here would be broader.  But perhaps I'm completely mistaken.
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:21, Heng Liu  wrote:
>>
>>> It seems most are comfortable with adding a remediation-capable boolean,
>>> which is simpler than another url while also making it explicit on whether
>>> remediation is provided or not, so UE could display different notifications.
>>>
>>> Anyone have any objections on adding this boolean please?
>>>
>>> If not, what's the next step on moving this forward please?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Heng
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:38 PM Tommy Pauly  wrote:
>>>
 Any captive portal that is newly adopting the CAPPORT API will
 hopefully be testing the setup in the new model, and will have to think
 about which URLs to map to different user experiences.

 A page that only says "you're logged in!", and has no way of adding
 more time, etc, is in my opinion a relatively useless page. If we provide a
 separate URL for remediation, it would seem to encourage such a design. Not
 including this would hopefully urge the portal design to a cleaner model.

 I do think the boolean is nice for highlighting to the captive portal
 deployer that they should think about remediation. I'd be more ok with that
 model, although it could also be an extension as we gain experience in
 deployment.

 Thanks,
 Tommy

 On Jan 13, 2020, at 6:00 PM, Remi NGUYEN VAN <
 reminv=40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

 If we show prompts to the user shortly before the session expires, we'd
 like to make sure that we can redirect them to some page where they can fix
 the problem, instead of landing on a page saying "you're logged in". The
 user-portal-url would work fine with a remediation-supported boolean for
 that purpose; having a separate URL gives additional flexibility to the
 access point operator, but from the point of view of the client I think
 both are fine.

 Cheers,

 Remi


 On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:02 AM Tommy Pauly >>> 40apple@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> I have a similar initial reaction to Erik's. Adding another URL that
> effectively is just another user portal, but meant to be used at certain
> times, adds a lot of complexity. I'm certainly not ruling out adding such 
> a
> key as need arises, but I'd hesitate to make it part of the initial set.
>
> Particularly, if we start seeing the "venue URL" be the main landing
> page we redirect people to once they're logged it, it kind of makes sense
> to let the user portal be the status/remediation/payment page.
>
> Tommy
>
> On Jan 13, 2020, at 4:06 PM, Erik Kline  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:26, Heng Liu  40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Erik Kline  wrote:
>>
>>> Why should this different from the user-portal-url?  It seems to me
>>> that either the user-portal-url would remediation UI elements or it
>>> wouldn't.
>>>
>> Some CP vendors want to specify a different URL specifically tailored
>> for remediation of a 

Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT

[Remi NGUYEN VAN]

As far as the Android implementation is concerned, I think it would be nice
to have capport API support in the next (android R) version; however due to
deadlines, it's going to be harder for me to change the attributes read
from the API very soon.
Following this discussion my current plan is to support an optional
"remediation-supported" boolean, and only prompt users to extend their
session shortly before it expires when it is set to true. Hopefully the
boolean can be added to the current draft or in a future, separate draft
considering that we seem to roughly agree on it, but if the group
eventually realizes that it wants to go in another direction, we'll update
behavior in subsequent releases.

Does that make sense ?

Cheers,

Remi

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:30 AM Erik Kline  wrote:

> If there's working group consensus to add it to the current API draft then
> definitely add it.  Otherwise, probably a separate document that would need
> a call for wg adoption.
>
> Separately, and hopefully without starting a massive bikeshed, is there a
> more apt word than "remediation"?  I think this specific word carries the
> connotation of "fixing an error" or "correcting damage" and it seems like
> the use here would be broader.  But perhaps I'm completely mistaken.
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:21, Heng Liu  wrote:
>
>> It seems most are comfortable with adding a remediation-capable boolean,
>> which is simpler than another url while also making it explicit on whether
>> remediation is provided or not, so UE could display different notifications.
>>
>> Anyone have any objections on adding this boolean please?
>>
>> If not, what's the next step on moving this forward please?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Heng
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:38 PM Tommy Pauly  wrote:
>>
>>> Any captive portal that is newly adopting the CAPPORT API will hopefully
>>> be testing the setup in the new model, and will have to think about which
>>> URLs to map to different user experiences.
>>>
>>> A page that only says "you're logged in!", and has no way of adding more
>>> time, etc, is in my opinion a relatively useless page. If we provide a
>>> separate URL for remediation, it would seem to encourage such a design. Not
>>> including this would hopefully urge the portal design to a cleaner model.
>>>
>>> I do think the boolean is nice for highlighting to the captive portal
>>> deployer that they should think about remediation. I'd be more ok with that
>>> model, although it could also be an extension as we gain experience in
>>> deployment.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tommy
>>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2020, at 6:00 PM, Remi NGUYEN VAN <
>>> reminv=40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> If we show prompts to the user shortly before the session expires, we'd
>>> like to make sure that we can redirect them to some page where they can fix
>>> the problem, instead of landing on a page saying "you're logged in". The
>>> user-portal-url would work fine with a remediation-supported boolean for
>>> that purpose; having a separate URL gives additional flexibility to the
>>> access point operator, but from the point of view of the client I think
>>> both are fine.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Remi
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:02 AM Tommy Pauly >> 40apple@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>>
 I have a similar initial reaction to Erik's. Adding another URL that
 effectively is just another user portal, but meant to be used at certain
 times, adds a lot of complexity. I'm certainly not ruling out adding such a
 key as need arises, but I'd hesitate to make it part of the initial set.

 Particularly, if we start seeing the "venue URL" be the main landing
 page we redirect people to once they're logged it, it kind of makes sense
 to let the user portal be the status/remediation/payment page.

 Tommy

 On Jan 13, 2020, at 4:06 PM, Erik Kline  wrote:



 On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:26, Heng Liu >>> 40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Erik Kline  wrote:
>
>> Why should this different from the user-portal-url?  It seems to me
>> that either the user-portal-url would remediation UI elements or it
>> wouldn't.
>>
> Some CP vendors want to specify a different URL specifically tailored
> for remediation of a session. By providing a 3rd URL, we can accommodate
> this use case..
>

 If the remediation URL is available but the user (somehow) navigates to
 the user-portal-url, what do they see?


>
>> With this 3rd URL, if the bytes/time does expire should the OS try to
>> launch an interaction the remediation URL and then fallback to the user 
>> URL
>> if it failed to load?  In which case, why not just leave all interaction
>> with the user-portal-url?
>>
> if a remediation URL is present, and if it fails to load for whatever
> reason, no need to fallback to user portal URL: CP vendor should 

Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT

[Erik Kline]

If there's working group consensus to add it to the current API draft then
definitely add it.  Otherwise, probably a separate document that would need
a call for wg adoption.

Separately, and hopefully without starting a massive bikeshed, is there a
more apt word than "remediation"?  I think this specific word carries the
connotation of "fixing an error" or "correcting damage" and it seems like
the use here would be broader.  But perhaps I'm completely mistaken.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:21, Heng Liu  wrote:

> It seems most are comfortable with adding a remediation-capable boolean,
> which is simpler than another url while also making it explicit on whether
> remediation is provided or not, so UE could display different notifications.
>
> Anyone have any objections on adding this boolean please?
>
> If not, what's the next step on moving this forward please?
>
> Thanks,
> Heng
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:38 PM Tommy Pauly  wrote:
>
>> Any captive portal that is newly adopting the CAPPORT API will hopefully
>> be testing the setup in the new model, and will have to think about which
>> URLs to map to different user experiences.
>>
>> A page that only says "you're logged in!", and has no way of adding more
>> time, etc, is in my opinion a relatively useless page. If we provide a
>> separate URL for remediation, it would seem to encourage such a design. Not
>> including this would hopefully urge the portal design to a cleaner model.
>>
>> I do think the boolean is nice for highlighting to the captive portal
>> deployer that they should think about remediation. I'd be more ok with that
>> model, although it could also be an extension as we gain experience in
>> deployment.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tommy
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2020, at 6:00 PM, Remi NGUYEN VAN <
>> reminv=40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> If we show prompts to the user shortly before the session expires, we'd
>> like to make sure that we can redirect them to some page where they can fix
>> the problem, instead of landing on a page saying "you're logged in". The
>> user-portal-url would work fine with a remediation-supported boolean for
>> that purpose; having a separate URL gives additional flexibility to the
>> access point operator, but from the point of view of the client I think
>> both are fine.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Remi
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:02 AM Tommy Pauly > 40apple@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a similar initial reaction to Erik's. Adding another URL that
>>> effectively is just another user portal, but meant to be used at certain
>>> times, adds a lot of complexity. I'm certainly not ruling out adding such a
>>> key as need arises, but I'd hesitate to make it part of the initial set.
>>>
>>> Particularly, if we start seeing the "venue URL" be the main landing
>>> page we redirect people to once they're logged it, it kind of makes sense
>>> to let the user portal be the status/remediation/payment page.
>>>
>>> Tommy
>>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2020, at 4:06 PM, Erik Kline  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:26, Heng Liu >> 40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Erik Kline  wrote:

> Why should this different from the user-portal-url?  It seems to me
> that either the user-portal-url would remediation UI elements or it
> wouldn't.
>
 Some CP vendors want to specify a different URL specifically tailored
 for remediation of a session. By providing a 3rd URL, we can accommodate
 this use case.

>>>
>>> If the remediation URL is available but the user (somehow) navigates to
>>> the user-portal-url, what do they see?
>>>
>>>

> With this 3rd URL, if the bytes/time does expire should the OS try to
> launch an interaction the remediation URL and then fallback to the user 
> URL
> if it failed to load?  In which case, why not just leave all interaction
> with the user-portal-url?
>
 if a remediation URL is present, and if it fails to load for whatever
 reason, no need to fallback to user portal URL: CP vendor should make sure
 the remediation URL is working properly (this is similar to user-portal url
 should work properly, if not, there is no other way for user to clear a CP)

>>>
>>> I guess I'm just trying to be mindful of one person's flexibility is
>>> another person's complexity.  I think this just doubles the number of URLs
>>> that the CP vendor needs to make sure function correctly.
>>>
>>> If the vendor doesn't implement a means to extend your session without
> completely shutting everything down and forcing to the user to restart the
> interaction flow anew, I could see that an OS would not want to bother the
> user with an interaction where they couldn't actually do anything useful.
> But that might suggest a boolean capability, rather than a new URL
> (remediation-supported={true|false})?
>
 A boolean field could also be a positive signal to notify UE 

Re: [Captive-portals] Remediation url for CAPPORT

[Tommy Pauly]

I have a similar initial reaction to Erik's. Adding another URL that 
effectively is just another user portal, but meant to be used at certain times, 
adds a lot of complexity. I'm certainly not ruling out adding such a key as 
need arises, but I'd hesitate to make it part of the initial set.

Particularly, if we start seeing the "venue URL" be the main landing page we 
redirect people to once they're logged it, it kind of makes sense to let the 
user portal be the status/remediation/payment page.

Tommy

> On Jan 13, 2020, at 4:06 PM, Erik Kline  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:26, Heng Liu  > wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Erik Kline  > wrote:
> Why should this different from the user-portal-url?  It seems to me that 
> either the user-portal-url would remediation UI elements or it wouldn't.
> Some CP vendors want to specify a different URL specifically tailored for 
> remediation of a session. By providing a 3rd URL, we can accommodate this use 
> case.
> 
> If the remediation URL is available but the user (somehow) navigates to the 
> user-portal-url, what do they see?
> 
>  
> With this 3rd URL, if the bytes/time does expire should the OS try to launch 
> an interaction the remediation URL and then fallback to the user URL if it 
> failed to load?  In which case, why not just leave all interaction with the 
> user-portal-url?
> if a remediation URL is present, and if it fails to load for whatever reason, 
> no need to fallback to user portal URL: CP vendor should make sure the 
> remediation URL is working properly (this is similar to user-portal url 
> should work properly, if not, there is no other way for user to clear a CP)
> 
> I guess I'm just trying to be mindful of one person's flexibility is another 
> person's complexity.  I think this just doubles the number of URLs that the 
> CP vendor needs to make sure function correctly.
> 
> If the vendor doesn't implement a means to extend your session without 
> completely shutting everything down and forcing to the user to restart the 
> interaction flow anew, I could see that an OS would not want to bother the 
> user with an interaction where they couldn't actually do anything useful.  
> But that might suggest a boolean capability, rather than a new URL 
> (remediation-supported={true|false})?
> A boolean field could also be a positive signal to notify UE that remediation 
> is possible, but this would prevent CP vendors from using different URLs for 
> remediation.
> 
> (As mentioned in the initial thread, this URL approach is also taken by the 
> Passpoint release 2.0 spec to signal remediation process.)
> 
> regards,
> Heng
> ___
> 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] Remediation url for CAPPORT

[Erik Kline]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 15:26, Heng Liu  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 2:34 PM Erik Kline  wrote:
>
>> Why should this different from the user-portal-url?  It seems to me that
>> either the user-portal-url would remediation UI elements or it wouldn't.
>>
> Some CP vendors want to specify a different URL specifically tailored for
> remediation of a session. By providing a 3rd URL, we can accommodate this
> use case.
>

If the remediation URL is available but the user (somehow) navigates to the
user-portal-url, what do they see?


>
>> With this 3rd URL, if the bytes/time does expire should the OS try to
>> launch an interaction the remediation URL and then fallback to the user URL
>> if it failed to load?  In which case, why not just leave all interaction
>> with the user-portal-url?
>>
> if a remediation URL is present, and if it fails to load for whatever
> reason, no need to fallback to user portal URL: CP vendor should make sure
> the remediation URL is working properly (this is similar to user-portal url
> should work properly, if not, there is no other way for user to clear a CP)
>

I guess I'm just trying to be mindful of one person's flexibility is
another person's complexity.  I think this just doubles the number of URLs
that the CP vendor needs to make sure function correctly.

If the vendor doesn't implement a means to extend your session without
>> completely shutting everything down and forcing to the user to restart the
>> interaction flow anew, I could see that an OS would not want to bother the
>> user with an interaction where they couldn't actually do anything useful.
>> But that might suggest a boolean capability, rather than a new URL
>> (remediation-supported={true|false})?
>>
> A boolean field could also be a positive signal to notify UE that
> remediation is possible, but this would prevent CP vendors from using
> different URLs for remediation.
>
> (As mentioned in the initial thread, this URL approach is also taken by
> the Passpoint release 2.0 spec to signal remediation process.)
>
> regards,
> Heng
> ___
> 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] Remediation url for CAPPORT

[Erik Kline]

Why should this different from the user-portal-url?  It seems to me that
either the user-portal-url would remediation UI elements or it wouldn't.

With this 3rd URL, if the bytes/time does expire should the OS try to
launch an interaction the remediation URL and then fallback to the user URL
if it failed to load?  In which case, why not just leave all interaction
with the user-portal-url?

If the vendor doesn't implement a means to extend your session without
completely shutting everything down and forcing to the user to restart the
interaction flow anew, I could see that an OS would not want to bother the
user with an interaction where they couldn't actually do anything useful.
But that might suggest a boolean capability, rather than a new URL
(remediation-supported={true|false})?

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:32 AM Remi NGUYEN VAN  wrote:

> In the context of Android, having this additional URL would help us as the
> system is not too sure what to do when the session is about to expire: if
> we show a notification saying "your session is about to expire" and the
> user taps it, but the venue info or login page do not show a remediation UI
> (many existing implementations may not have such a page), this would be
> confusing to users.
> Having a clear signal from the portal that sessions that are about to
> expire can be extended at the given URL would help.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Remi
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:46 PM Heng Liu  40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> In some captive portals, it's possible to extend (or remediate) an
>> existing session without losing connectivity. This use case is covered in
>> the CAPPORT architecture draft:
>>
>> 4.2.  Conditions About to Expire
>>
>>This section describes a possible work-flow when access is about to
>>expire.
>>
>>1.  Precondition: the API server has provided the User Equipment with
>>a duration over which its access is valid
>>
>>2.  The User Equipment is communicating with the outside network
>>
>>3.  The User Equipment's UI indicates that the length of time left
>>for its access has fallen below a threshold
>>
>>4.  The User Equipment visits the API again to validate the expiry
>>time
>>
>>5.  If expiry is still imminent, the User Equipment prompts the user
>>to access the web-portal URI again
>>
>> Step 5 in the above section suggests UE visit the user-portal URI again.
>>
>> However, not all CP provides a way to extend sessions. In order to
>> provide a positive signal that extending session is possible, what do you
>> think if an optional remediation-url field is introduced in the API JSON
>> file please?
>>
>> CP provider can set this to the same URL as the user-portal-url if they
>> want, or they can provide a different URL, If present, then in the Step 5
>> above, the remediation url will be used.
>>
>> The presence of this url is a positive signal to the UE that extending a
>> session is possible in this captive portal.
>>
>> Our user research in many markets on Captive Portals indicates that many
>> users dislike having their connection interrupted (e.g., in the middle of a
>> call, download, stream). For operators who are willing to offer a way to
>> extend without an interruption, this is an improvement to the user
>> experience.
>>
>> This remediation-url is similar to the "subscription remediation"
>> mechanism outlined in Passpoint (Hotspot 2.0) Release 2:
>>
>> In the Passpoint Release 2.0 Spec, page 71 "8.1.3 Subscription
>> remediation" section:
>>
>> For the purposes of this document, the term “remediation” refers broadly
>> to the process of fixing a problem in the subscriber’s subscription; this
>> definition includes provisioning updated credentials to a mobile device,
>> updating the PerProviderSubscription MO on a mobile device or performing
>> some online function to update the subscription (i.e., no new
>> credentials/data are provisioned to the mobile device).
>>
>> On page 72:
>>
>> There are two classes of remediation: machine and user remediation:
>> • Machine remediation means the problem(s) with the subscription can be
>> remediated
>> without any user intervention.
>> • User remediation means the problem(s) with the subscription requires
>> user intervention.
>>
>> On the same page 72, in section "8.1.4 Subscription management web
>> content", it states a web page could get more info from a user if "user
>> remediation" is needed.
>>
>> regards
>> Dr. Heng Liu
>> ___
>> 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