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

[Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 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.

I am not talking about control, I am talking about information. PVD is 
about information, ALTO is also about information.

For instance, I don't see a reason for CAPPORT to have its own RA option 
when a more generic one could be used for both CAPPORT and MIF PVD 
information. Unofrtunately I was "asleep" when the RA option was sent to 
6man for review. Both (RA/DHCP) are about providing information to devices 
on the network. ALTO is also about providing information.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I think it's a mistake to just make the 
work here, looking only at the CAPPORT use-case, and looking nowhere else. 
A more generic option, if not allowed by the charter to be done here, can 
be done in INT-AREA or 6man or somewhere else.

I don't like captive portals, I want them to die. But there are other 
use-cases for providing information to devices and I'd hate to have siloed 
solutions for every problem-space. I'd love to hear from implementors what 
their view is, do they want more specialised ways of doing things, or 
fewer more generic ones.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se