Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020, at 12:53, Martin Duke wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 4:52 PM Tommy Pauly wrote: > > > > > > I believe in this case the architecture document needs to change, or > > clarify that this MUST refers to that the mechanism needs to be *able* to > > communicate such a

Re: [Captive-portals] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-04

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 8:21 PM Erik Kline wrote: > I think there are two separate things here. > > [1] The use of HTTPS allows the client to authenticate the API and > interactive URLs the same way a browser would be confident it's > talking to amazon.com, for example. > > I think in this sense,

Re: [Captive-portals] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: (with COMMENT)

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:33 AM Kyle Larose wrote: > > Also curious is that "User Equipment" is defined in Section 2.1, but not > > shortened to "UE" anywhere other than in Section 3.5. > > > > We should be consistent throughout the document. If it aids > readability, I have no problem changing it

Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with COMMENT)

Thanks! On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 8:50 AM Tommy Pauly wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for the updated review. I’ve incorporated these comments in our > GitHub: > > > https://github.com/capport-wg/api/commit/daeba897a1d50229b86f6ec23a026aaa725bf672 > > Thanks, > Tommy > > On Jun 8, 2020, at 8:08 AM,

Re: [Captive-portals] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi Murray, Thanks for the review! Some comments inline. > On May 13, 2020, at 12:45 AM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker > wrote: > > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-capport-api-07: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line

Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi Martin, Thanks for the updated review. I’ve incorporated these comments in our GitHub: https://github.com/capport-wg/api/commit/daeba897a1d50229b86f6ec23a026aaa725bf672 Thanks, Tommy > On Jun 8, 2020, at

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

[Captive-portals] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-capport-api-07: 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

[Captive-portals] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: Discuss 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

Re: [Captive-portals] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: (with COMMENT)

Hi Murray, Thanks for the review! Responses inline. On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 00:00, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote: > > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: No Objection > >

Re: [Captive-portals] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 20:03, Erik Kline wrote: > > Tommy is correct. I think the architecture document should add a > qualifying subclause to clarify that requirement (2) only applies "if > captive portal enforcement may be active on the given network" or > something. > > The model supports,

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 > > >