* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Capport Status Pages

Captive Portal Interaction (Active WG)
Art Area: Barry Leiba, Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov | 2016-Jan-04 —  

IETF-104 capport minutes

Session 2019-03-27 1120-1320: Karlin 3 - Audio stream - capport chatroom


minutes-104-capport-00 minute

          (ietf 104 capport wed 11) - 20
          (Materials) -
          Administrivia                      5   Chairs
            - Agenda bash
          current AD adam roach announces barry will be capport responsible AD
          starting later today.
          Draft Status
            - 7710bis (update)               5  Erik
          question is whether there is wg consensus to adopt above
          (presentation) -
          (mt) -  is there a preference order
          (erik) -  yes, but not within families
          7710bis questions
          Does the conent negotion look reasonable?
          what more can be said about precedence during misconfiguration?
          (tommy pauly) -  adopt it - looks reasonable. and will review
          (mnot) -  please assign me an issue to review the content negotiation.
          (mt) -  we need more reviewers. any volunteers?
          (ted lemon) -  I will be reviewing this document
          (darshark) -  I will be reviewing this document
          (mt) -  does anyone think adopting this is a bad idea [no responses]
          (mt) -  I will send email
            - Architecture (update)          5  Chairs
          authors not available
          thomas peterson pledges to make a contribution this week
            - API (update)                   10  Tommy&Darshak
          (tommy's presentation) -
          (mt) -  you have about 8 open issues on github, but some are complete
          (tommy) -  I will do a pass on that.
          [we do a pass in real time]
          20 can be closed but a new issue can be opened
          19 is done
          ..[crosstalk] several others done. about 4 are meaningfully open.
          discuss 18 - bytes remaining
          (tommy) -  if we have insight into what capport does for blocking, do
          they have data limits or generally at which layer are they doing it. if
          we are unsure should we make that part of the name.
          (erik) -  it must be something the device itself can count (as opposed
          to opaque tunnel overhead)
          (chris seal) -  operators also apply counters in the case of
          prepaid. though control plane would not count in that case. tunnels and
          mobile signaling don't qualify. l3 matches
          (erik) -  do bytes sent to the portal explicitly count?
          (tommy) -  things that are whitelisted in the capport network don't count
          (erik) -  client doesn't know what those things
          (tommy) -  beyond the capport itself yes
          (jean-jacques?) -  this isn't that useful in UI
          (tommy) -  do l3 bytes and comment about whitelisted
          (mt) -  ingress or egress?
          (all) -  yes (both)
          (erik kinnear) -  its better to overcount. whitelisted doesn't matter much
          (tero) -  l3 makes sense
          (mt) -  rough conensus on tommy's approach
          discuss 20
          (tommy) -  better served by author making a PR
          What does "done" look like for this group?  Chairs
          (mt) -  hope near wglc on api draft. architecture draft has a number of
          open issues (5) as well inclding doh. (#25)
          (presentation about 'sticking point' https) -
          (mt) -  is wg comfortable with the boolean cap/nocap signal we've been
          doing so far rather than a richer state. does anyone have interest? we
          have json as an escape valve or do we need to block work on these
          ((no badge)) -  I am more comfortable with binary yes/no. lack use cases
          and may not be appropriate for capport to do the signal
          (mt) -  the webpage also allows a lot of non-machine readable expression
          (tommy) -  I agree with the simple view. we don't define the keys as
          the extension mechanism - we might onsider that
          (mt) -  we need an iana registry if extension is desirable. an issue
          will be filed
          (mt) -  chairs need a sense about should we just go forward with the
          issue list, or do we go back and more full engage with more state about
          the terms of confinement?
          (hum question) -  should we proceed with the simple signal we currently
          (hum question) -  should we continue to engage with finding a solution
          to the richer state space
          (mt) -  clear hum - will send it to the list. necessary changes are
          expected by ietf 105.
          adjourned 1156

Generated from PyHt script /wg/capport/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -