Publication request writeup for draft-ietf-capport-architecture-07
Intended status: Informational
Working group: capport
Document shepherd: Martin Thomson
This document defines terminology related to the operation of a captive portal.
Using those terms, it then defines how a network that deploys a captive portal
Working Group Summary:
This document was difficult to reach consensus on. The complexity of the
architecture here is reflective of a far greater complexity in practice of
More contentious in discussion was the question of what signals from the network
would be provided and what clients might do in response to those signals. The
hard reality of the situation is that clients will be forced to use the existing
heuristics they use, likely indefinitely, even when the mechanisms we define are
in relatively wide deployment.
A particularly difficult discussion was the option for a network to signal that
conditions have changed. There was considerable discussion about the security
properties of unsolicited signals from the network, how that related to the
identification of endpoints (or User Equipment to use the terminology here), and
how these signals might be turned to malicious ends.
In the end, we decided to document requirements for how User Equipment is
identified and how to avoid identifier spoofing. A high-level design and
security requirements for a signal from the network about changed conditions was
also documented, but no mechanism that met these requirements was proposed and
the working group decided to proceed to publication without a specific
This document has not had a whole lot of attention from editors over time, and
editors have changed. This shows in some editorial aspects of the document, but
aside from a few areas in which things like terminology are inconsistently
capitalized, the document is in good shape. The current editors have made some
Martin Thomson is document shepherd. Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.
This document represents the consensus of the capport WG. The above summarizes
some of the challenges overcome. There were a few occasions where this
consensus was a little rocky though.
This document has no special requirement for review and so has received limited
IPR disclosures from authors have been checked. No IPR disclosures have been
made with reference to this work.
No request is made of IANA.
Validation is limited to nits check (which only reported false positives).