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

[Erik Kline <ek@google.com>]

On 12 April 2017 at 01:05, Christian Saunders <Christian.Saunders@sjrb.ca> wrote:

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.

Indeed.  And it seems like we have.

Just to be clear, I think it only makes sense for us to speak and work in terms of network access as a whole, per our charter.

I originally brought up zero rating because I saw some potential for abuse.  But there are many such pitfalls, and we'll just have to be cautious and address the ones we can in our documents.

I think we have some promising avenues for forward motion, in the ICMP and architecture documents, but more on that in a separate thread.

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