Re: [Captive-portals] CAPPORT meeting at IETF95 in Buenos Aires.

[Caciano Machado <caciano@gmail.com>]

I think it is important to write in subsection 2.1 why would I need a captive portal for authentication instead of more secure solutions, like 802.1x. Despite the reason is implicit in the text

   "In all of these cases, using a Web browser is attractive, because it
   gives the network the ability to tailor the user's interface and
   experience, as well as the ability to integrate third-party payment,
   advertising, authentication and other services."

, I consider it is better to be explicit about some examples of needs that dot1x does not take into account, because it is a widely deployed solution that many people consider the right way to do things.

Caciano

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree about removing (or not including) the asterisks. Adding the tools team.

Thanks,
    Yaron

On 02/16/2016 01:30 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

Actually, the markdown-to-RFCXML tool works fine (as you can see in the
HTML generated from this: https://mnot.github.io/I-D/capport-problem/),
it's just that TXT doesn't have bold, so XML2RFC marks the bold text
asterisks :-)  [I happen to think that this is a distraction that needs
to be switched off in XML2RFC.]

Grüße, Carsten


Yaron Sheffer wrote:

Your markdown-to-RFC tool misses out on asterisks that are being used
for bold text, and remain in the TXT version (Sec. 3).

_______________________________________________
Captive-portals mailing list
Captive-portals@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals