Telechat Review of draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07
review-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07-intdir-telechat-weber-2020-06-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2020-06-09
Requested 2020-05-27
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Warren Kumari, Erik Kline
Draft last updated 2020-06-06
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Tim Chown (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -07 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -07 by Ralf Weber (diff)
Comments
Especially around the IPv6 DHCP/RA and IPv4 DHCP.
Thank you
-éric
Assignment Reviewer Ralf Weber 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07-intdir-telechat-weber-2020-06-06
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/ZuunfKIN1j1L9YyfmGiiHV8U_3o
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-06-06

Review
review-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07-intdir-telechat-weber-2020-06-06

Moin!

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis. These comments were written primarily
for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/

This draft defines an update to RFC7710 on the different methods a network can use to signal an existence of a captive portal. The draft is well written and actually addressed one nit I had with RFC7710 when reading it for the first time for the review of the bis document. 

There are two things that I would consider doing differently, but they don't affect the overall draft.

In section two of the draft you have:

In all variants of this option, the URI MUST be that of the captive
portal API endpoint, conforming to the recommendations for such URIs
[draft-ietf-capport-api].

Now I read the latest draft-ietf-capport-api on datatracker and there were no formal or recommendations at all for URI schemes. There were examples, but I guess if you are implementing this and you are told that there are guidelines they should be clearly spelled out. Protocol wise it is important that they implement the API endpoint correct and the URI really doesn't matter to much, so I would end the sentence at the comma.

In section 3 Precedence of API URI the first paragraph tells me as am implementer that I'm free to implement whatever to use of the three methods described in the draft, however the second paragraph tells me that I should log an error if they are different. That makes no sense for  a lazy coder like me as I would not look into other methods if one has succeeded. I think it is ok to give that freedom implied by the first paragraph to implementors here, but to really give them freed we should scrap the second paragraph. If the authors feel they need to describe the client logic in more detail this has to be extended way beyond a single paragraph.

So long
-Ralf