Re: [Captive-portals] time-based walled gardens

[Erik Kline <ek@google.com>]

There is one use case defined in our charter:

"""
Some networks require interaction from users prior to authorizing
network access. Before that authorization is granted, network access
might be limited in some fashion. Frequently, this authorization process
requires human interaction to arrange for payment or to accept some
legal terms.
"""

Expanding the scope of this work to allow networks to further control their users' experience after authorisation to use the network (even if that is just giving a better user experience of that control) is not a small change. Allowing networks to interpose themselves in communication after authorisation is not a small change.

AFAICT addressing these use cases would require re-chartering, and that's something I would argue vigorously against. I'd like to hear a clear statement from the Chairs about what they think the scope of work is here.

Doffing my co-chair hat and speaking as a general Internet citizen, I too would oppose such a thing.  We could end up with some kind of IETF Signalling System 7 where we ask the network if we're permitted to make a connection for each and every new connection like some kind of circuit setup.

As a working group member, I do wonder how we might prevent abuse of any "solutions" we design.

As a co-chair, I'm wondering whether, in addition to draft-nottingham-capport-problem, we need a document describing the limitations of any potential solution space.  (How does a client OS prevent malicious apps costing the user money by auto-extending a billed session? et cetera)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature