[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Captive-portals] Arguments against (any) Capport "API"
In this context, one advantage is that the user device knows this is a special URL. It knows exactly why it is being presented. We may recommend the user be made clearly aware.
I think it is clearer than some random http or DNS that might be redirected (methods currently available)
David Dolson
Original Message
From: Martin Thomson
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 8:50 PM
To: David Bird
Cc: Michael Richardson; Martin J. Dürst; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Arguments against (any) Capport "API"
On 7 April 2017 at 22:08, David Bird <[email protected]> wrote:
> To be clear, Gmail hyperlinked boingo.com for me... but, the point is that
> the UE/capport detection parsed and validated (checked the cert and cert
> status) of the FQDN. It is not some URL with questionable formatting...
I think that you missed my point.
The foundation for HTTPS is that there is an expectation of server
identity when navigation is initiated. The same cannot be said in
this context.
_______________________________________________
Captive-portals mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals