Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-capport-architecture-07

> On Apr 27, 2020, at 7:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > > Thanks for the reply, Dave, and I think we're OK to start last call on > the document after you post a revised I-D with the changes so far -- > most unresolved things are not at a blocking level. Just one thing > I'd like to push on before

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. 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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

[Captive-portals] Last Call: (Captive Portal API) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Captive Portal Interaction WG (capport) to consider the following document: - 'Captive Portal API' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive

Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-capport-api-06

Thanks for the updates, Tommy... I have requested last call on -07, and that will come out as soon as the Secretariat does their magic. Barry On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:55 PM Tommy Pauly wrote: > > Hi Barry, > > Thanks for the review! Update made here: > > >

Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-capport-api-06

Hi Barry, Thanks for the review! Update made here: https://github.com/capport-wg/api/commit/27cd22fd8a8db696efb9772acd6c05d24a86c81d This has been posted as draft-ietf-capport-api-07:

[Captive-portals] I-D Action: draft-ietf-capport-api-07.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Captive Portal Interaction WG of the IETF. Title : Captive Portal API Authors : Tommy Pauly Darshak Thakore

Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-03

> Thanks for the prompt review. You're welcome, and thanks for the prompt reply! I've eliminated the resolved items below, and leave the ones for which issues are open, for my own quick reference. I think they should be easy to resolve, and then we can get a revised I-D and start last call. --

Re: [Captive-portals] AD review of draft-ietf-capport-architecture-07

Thanks for the reply, Dave, and I think we're OK to start last call on the document after you post a revised I-D with the changes so far -- most unresolved things are not at a blocking level. Just one thing I'd like to push on before you revise the I-D, though: > > Please be consistent about