[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

As a Captive Portal infrastructure architect for a Wi-Fi operator my bias should be clear.

We use the Captive Portal to assist in customer on-boarding and to provide an improved user experience to users who are not entitled to access.

That being said, it is possible that a captive portal could be used for abuse.

Similarly, there is abhorrent traffic transmitted via HTTP but I certainly don't want this protocol to die.

My hope would be for the group to move on to more relevant topics.

Cheers!

Christian
Christian Saunders
Shaw Communications Inc.
On 17-04-11 08:16 AM, David Bird wrote:
I believe we both were referring more to the comment: "I don't like captive portals, I want them to die. "

I know that wasn't your main point, but it is seems to be a feeling shared among some in this WG.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Niall Hogg wrote:

Either way, opinions about the morality of captive portals are entirely

Morality? I was asking for technical input, if (for instance) Android/iOS implementors would like to have network information sent to them in multiple protocols depending on where in the IETF it's done, or if they'd prefer a fewer protocols/methods that are more generic.


--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email protected]

_______________________________________________
Captive-portals mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals



_______________________________________________
Captive-portals mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals