| pr paths node_dis_index pr_dis para commentary commit_s commit_e draft para_hash block_hash url AB paragraph | |
| 32 {} {} {} """can-extend-session"" (optional, boolean): indicates that the URL | |
| specified as ""user-portal-url"" allows the user to extend a session | |
| once the client is no longer in a state of captivity. This | |
| provides a hint that a client system can suggest accessing the | |
| portal URL to the user when the session is near its limit in terms | |
| of time or bytes." "Add key for extending sessions . Implements . | |
| I want to be clear that there is no extend - session API here . It 's just an indication that the user could do that somehow , in a browser . | |
| correct , there 's no specific API to do so . It just indicates if there 's a possibility of the user doing so . Future mechanisms for doing so automatically are left for the future =) | |
| Boolean value to add . Suggested names have been and . | |
| LGTM" 2868d8434b0ed1a047bd134dd003a0c7fc437376 2868d8434b0ed1a047bd134dd003a0c7fc437376 draft-ietf-capport-api 4cc4bb79e7cd91fe706f4213730ea0959daa32bbff3027d6b9c6987bd977e761 ['4cc4bb79e7cd91fe706f4213730ea0959daa32bbff3027d6b9c6987bd977e761'] B """can-extend-session"" (optional, boolean): indicates that the url | |
| specified as ""user-portal-url"" allows the user to extend a session | |
| once the client is no longer in a state of captivity. this | |
| provides a hint that a client system can suggest accessing the | |
| portal url to the user when the session is near its limit in terms | |
| of time or bytes." | |
| 29 {} {} {} """expire-date"" (optional, string formatted as RFC3339 datetime): | |
| indicates the date and time after which the client will be in a | |
| captive state. The API server SHOULD include this value if the | |
| client is not captive (i.e. captive=false) and SHOULD omit this | |
| value for captive clients." "Completes | |
| As discussed in the IETF hackathon / informal meeting , the consensus is to change expire - date ( an absolute iso datetime ) to seconds - remaining integer ( named after bytes - remaining ) | |
| This was already done ! | |
| thanks , missed that | |
| The draft currently specifies a deadline as an absolute time . Experience with implementation showed that time remaining ( in seconds ) was easier to implement and less subject to the vagaries of clock differences ." a58bd56731ed01e32c94da3908ef0d5b952d056d a58bd56731ed01e32c94da3908ef0d5b952d056d draft-ietf-capport-api 70e9a87b7f84773d1dc19a814a796bc0015d6fbaa26c97b5db55ab60b6691622 ['70e9a87b7f84773d1dc19a814a796bc0015d6fbaa26c97b5db55ab60b6691622', '8c672b1e19461a102721551c1acc019337176112e75032f9f344f31cdb0f124f'] A """expire-date"" (optional, string formatted as rfc3339 datetime): | |
| indicates the date and time after which the client will be in a | |
| captive state. the api server should include this value if the | |
| client is not captive (i.e. captive=false) and should omit this | |
| value for captive clients." | |
| 29 {} {} {} """seconds-remaining"" (optional, integer): indicates the number of | |
| seconds remaining, after which the client will be placed into a | |
| captive state. The API server SHOULD include this value if the | |
| client is not captive (i.e. captive=false) and SHOULD omit this | |
| value for captive clients." "Completes | |
| As discussed in the IETF hackathon / informal meeting , the consensus is to change expire - date ( an absolute iso datetime ) to seconds - remaining integer ( named after bytes - remaining ) | |
| This was already done ! | |
| thanks , missed that | |
| The draft currently specifies a deadline as an absolute time . Experience with implementation showed that time remaining ( in seconds ) was easier to implement and less subject to the vagaries of clock differences ." a58bd56731ed01e32c94da3908ef0d5b952d056d a58bd56731ed01e32c94da3908ef0d5b952d056d draft-ietf-capport-api 8c672b1e19461a102721551c1acc019337176112e75032f9f344f31cdb0f124f ['70e9a87b7f84773d1dc19a814a796bc0015d6fbaa26c97b5db55ab60b6691622', '8c672b1e19461a102721551c1acc019337176112e75032f9f344f31cdb0f124f'] B """seconds-remaining"" (optional, integer): indicates the number of | |
| seconds remaining, after which the client will be placed into a | |
| captive state. the api server should include this value if the | |
| client is not captive (i.e. captive=false) and should omit this | |
| value for captive clients." | |
| 26 {} {} {} TBD: Provide complete security requirements and analysis. "Adding a security considerations section to describe the security benefits that are , along with the concern about trusting any hostnames even after authentication . I 'd like to get some form of this in soon , and then rev the document before the IETF 105 cutoff . | |
| thanks for starting this . looks like a good text to start with . Should we also propose something to the privacy section ? | |
| We have a bit in the privacy section already , so I was going to leave it for now . If you have suggested text , let me know and I ’ll add it !" f391dbfb4773a59df982d7c123777383b7a71bbb f391dbfb4773a59df982d7c123777383b7a71bbb draft-ietf-capport-api 102522fb65d198c10dd2fc12e064749d71328c9d30f5d851756b5b4988c18db4 ['102522fb65d198c10dd2fc12e064749d71328c9d30f5d851756b5b4988c18db4', '2ebfd9aa0ffadb007cb904a01067f18cd17ccc599943e279b5cde403716afc65', '87f980fd845ddd5e82f5cbb5c4146c33465b3a53a2419b64756e259e32a3e168', 'ee4ca1c1238e56b5eb4199eac9df583582ec5238395b97ac44c6ddb23555692f'] A tbd: provide complete security requirements and analysis. | |
| 26 {} {} {} "One of the goals of this protocol is to improve the security of the | |
| communication between client hosts and Captive Portal systems. | |
| Client traffic is protected from passive listeners on the local | |
| network by requiring TLS-encrypted connections between the client and | |
| the Captive Portal API server, as described in api-details. All | |
| communication between the clients and the API server MUST be | |
| encrypted." "Adding a security considerations section to describe the security benefits that are , along with the concern about trusting any hostnames even after authentication . I 'd like to get some form of this in soon , and then rev the document before the IETF 105 cutoff . | |
| thanks for starting this . looks like a good text to start with . Should we also propose something to the privacy section ? | |
| We have a bit in the privacy section already , so I was going to leave it for now . If you have suggested text , let me know and I ’ll add it !" f391dbfb4773a59df982d7c123777383b7a71bbb f391dbfb4773a59df982d7c123777383b7a71bbb draft-ietf-capport-api 2ebfd9aa0ffadb007cb904a01067f18cd17ccc599943e279b5cde403716afc65 ['102522fb65d198c10dd2fc12e064749d71328c9d30f5d851756b5b4988c18db4', '2ebfd9aa0ffadb007cb904a01067f18cd17ccc599943e279b5cde403716afc65', '87f980fd845ddd5e82f5cbb5c4146c33465b3a53a2419b64756e259e32a3e168', 'ee4ca1c1238e56b5eb4199eac9df583582ec5238395b97ac44c6ddb23555692f'] B "one of the goals of this protocol is to improve the security of the | |
| communication between client hosts and captive portal systems. | |
| client traffic is protected from passive listeners on the local | |
| network by requiring tls-encrypted connections between the client and | |
| the captive portal api server, as described in api-details. all | |
| communication between the clients and the api server must be | |
| encrypted." | |
| 26 {} {} {} "In addition to encrypting communications between clients and Captive | |
| Portal systems, this protocol requires a basic level of | |
| authentication from the API server, as described in server-auth. | |
| Specifically, the API server MUST present a valid certificate on | |
| which the client can perform revocation checks. This allows the | |
| client to ensure that the API server has authority for a hostname | |
| that can be presented to a user." "Adding a security considerations section to describe the security benefits that are , along with the concern about trusting any hostnames even after authentication . I 'd like to get some form of this in soon , and then rev the document before the IETF 105 cutoff . | |
| thanks for starting this . looks like a good text to start with . Should we also propose something to the privacy section ? | |
| We have a bit in the privacy section already , so I was going to leave it for now . If you have suggested text , let me know and I ’ll add it !" f391dbfb4773a59df982d7c123777383b7a71bbb f391dbfb4773a59df982d7c123777383b7a71bbb draft-ietf-capport-api 87f980fd845ddd5e82f5cbb5c4146c33465b3a53a2419b64756e259e32a3e168 ['102522fb65d198c10dd2fc12e064749d71328c9d30f5d851756b5b4988c18db4', '2ebfd9aa0ffadb007cb904a01067f18cd17ccc599943e279b5cde403716afc65', '87f980fd845ddd5e82f5cbb5c4146c33465b3a53a2419b64756e259e32a3e168', 'ee4ca1c1238e56b5eb4199eac9df583582ec5238395b97ac44c6ddb23555692f'] B "in addition to encrypting communications between clients and captive | |
| portal systems, this protocol requires a basic level of | |
| authentication from the api server, as described in server-auth. | |
| specifically, the api server must present a valid certificate on | |
| which the client can perform revocation checks. this allows the | |
| client to ensure that the api server has authority for a hostname | |
| that can be presented to a user." | |
| 26 {} {} {} "It is important to note that while the server authentication checks | |
| can validate a specific hostname, it is certainly possible for the | |
| API server to present a valid certificate for a hostname that uses | |
| non-standard characters or is otherwise designed to trick the user | |
| into believing that its hostname is some other, more trustworthy, | |
| name. This is a danger of any scenario in which a hostname is not | |
| typed in by a user." "Adding a security considerations section to describe the security benefits that are , along with the concern about trusting any hostnames even after authentication . I 'd like to get some form of this in soon , and then rev the document before the IETF 105 cutoff . | |
| thanks for starting this . looks like a good text to start with . Should we also propose something to the privacy section ? | |
| We have a bit in the privacy section already , so I was going to leave it for now . If you have suggested text , let me know and I ’ll add it !" f391dbfb4773a59df982d7c123777383b7a71bbb f391dbfb4773a59df982d7c123777383b7a71bbb draft-ietf-capport-api ee4ca1c1238e56b5eb4199eac9df583582ec5238395b97ac44c6ddb23555692f ['102522fb65d198c10dd2fc12e064749d71328c9d30f5d851756b5b4988c18db4', '2ebfd9aa0ffadb007cb904a01067f18cd17ccc599943e279b5cde403716afc65', '87f980fd845ddd5e82f5cbb5c4146c33465b3a53a2419b64756e259e32a3e168', 'ee4ca1c1238e56b5eb4199eac9df583582ec5238395b97ac44c6ddb23555692f'] B "it is important to note that while the server authentication checks | |
| can validate a specific hostname, it is certainly possible for the | |
| api server to present a valid certificate for a hostname that uses | |
| non-standard characters or is otherwise designed to trick the user | |
| into believing that its hostname is some other, more trustworthy, | |
| name. this is a danger of any scenario in which a hostname is not | |
| typed in by a user." | |
| 24 {} {} {} """user-portal-url"" (required, string): provides the URL of a web | |
| portal with which a user can interact." "As discussed in , define an IANA registry for extending keys use for Captive Portal API . | |
| thanks for the comments . Please take another pass ! | |
| Should we define an IANA registry for adding new keys ? | |
| Yes , yes we should . | |
| and i already commented in the PR , but if possible it would be beneficial to have some distinction between IETF or a relevant organization ( like WFA , WBA ) requested keys vs from some individual organization | |
| Would we want to suggest having a nested dictionary format for organization - specific extensions ? Like "" wba "" as a key to a dictionary ; or a sub - dictionary indicating that there are WISPr - related settings to be aware of ? | |
| i think it would be a good idea . We have seen WBA start to take active interest in the documents . Also there 's work happening in WFA that could benefit from having an extension point | |
| RFC 6648 might suggest otherwise . If there are things that a group wants to add that are truly unique to that group , this is probably fine . | |
| Yes , I think that more than having per - group keys ( with almost certain overlap ) , I 'd imagine that compatibility with certain technologies would be handled via these sub - dictionaries , such as what I mentioned for WISPr . Not sure how critical mentioning this is in the document though . | |
| Can we call this one done ? | |
| I 'm assuming we will go down the path of defining an IANA registry with access technology specific extension ? | |
| The description in "" Captive Portal API Keys Registry "" gives some guidance for prefixes , etc . I assume the experts once designated can work with WFA / WBA to define proper entries ." c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 draft-ietf-capport-api 4d2027d5c86257ddbe102cde5471d8ddc66d88065606ebbda2fc473823a16112 ['4d2027d5c86257ddbe102cde5471d8ddc66d88065606ebbda2fc473823a16112', '86240d0d75d9d3d27c523ddf70efd5c00cfbb935999f354cb78d88e72fba7689', 'f7336317c26e622bf55f989d5acd61bd115051d9b61e7a1c6bba76d94a73de49', '901153d8222f5843627aff8ff5844fffbf82c4215742448f544b16b4c96ac3ba'] A """user-portal-url"" (required, string): provides the url of a web | |
| portal with which a user can interact." | |
| 24 {} {} {} """vendor-info-url"" (optional, string): provides the URL of a | |
| webpage or site on which the operator of the network has | |
| information that it wishes to share with the user (e.g. store | |
| info, maps, flight status, or entertainment)." "As discussed in , define an IANA registry for extending keys use for Captive Portal API . | |
| thanks for the comments . Please take another pass ! | |
| Should we define an IANA registry for adding new keys ? | |
| Yes , yes we should . | |
| and i already commented in the PR , but if possible it would be beneficial to have some distinction between IETF or a relevant organization ( like WFA , WBA ) requested keys vs from some individual organization | |
| Would we want to suggest having a nested dictionary format for organization - specific extensions ? Like "" wba "" as a key to a dictionary ; or a sub - dictionary indicating that there are WISPr - related settings to be aware of ? | |
| i think it would be a good idea . We have seen WBA start to take active interest in the documents . Also there 's work happening in WFA that could benefit from having an extension point | |
| RFC 6648 might suggest otherwise . If there are things that a group wants to add that are truly unique to that group , this is probably fine . | |
| Yes , I think that more than having per - group keys ( with almost certain overlap ) , I 'd imagine that compatibility with certain technologies would be handled via these sub - dictionaries , such as what I mentioned for WISPr . Not sure how critical mentioning this is in the document though . | |
| Can we call this one done ? | |
| I 'm assuming we will go down the path of defining an IANA registry with access technology specific extension ? | |
| The description in "" Captive Portal API Keys Registry "" gives some guidance for prefixes , etc . I assume the experts once designated can work with WFA / WBA to define proper entries ." c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 draft-ietf-capport-api 86240d0d75d9d3d27c523ddf70efd5c00cfbb935999f354cb78d88e72fba7689 ['4d2027d5c86257ddbe102cde5471d8ddc66d88065606ebbda2fc473823a16112', '86240d0d75d9d3d27c523ddf70efd5c00cfbb935999f354cb78d88e72fba7689', 'f7336317c26e622bf55f989d5acd61bd115051d9b61e7a1c6bba76d94a73de49', '901153d8222f5843627aff8ff5844fffbf82c4215742448f544b16b4c96ac3ba'] A """vendor-info-url"" (optional, string): provides the url of a | |
| webpage or site on which the operator of the network has | |
| information that it wishes to share with the user (e.g. store | |
| info, maps, flight status, or entertainment)." | |
| 24 {} {} {} """user-portal-url"" (optional, string): provides the URL of a web | |
| portal with which a user can interact." "As discussed in , define an IANA registry for extending keys use for Captive Portal API . | |
| thanks for the comments . Please take another pass ! | |
| Should we define an IANA registry for adding new keys ? | |
| Yes , yes we should . | |
| and i already commented in the PR , but if possible it would be beneficial to have some distinction between IETF or a relevant organization ( like WFA , WBA ) requested keys vs from some individual organization | |
| Would we want to suggest having a nested dictionary format for organization - specific extensions ? Like "" wba "" as a key to a dictionary ; or a sub - dictionary indicating that there are WISPr - related settings to be aware of ? | |
| i think it would be a good idea . We have seen WBA start to take active interest in the documents . Also there 's work happening in WFA that could benefit from having an extension point | |
| RFC 6648 might suggest otherwise . If there are things that a group wants to add that are truly unique to that group , this is probably fine . | |
| Yes , I think that more than having per - group keys ( with almost certain overlap ) , I 'd imagine that compatibility with certain technologies would be handled via these sub - dictionaries , such as what I mentioned for WISPr . Not sure how critical mentioning this is in the document though . | |
| Can we call this one done ? | |
| I 'm assuming we will go down the path of defining an IANA registry with access technology specific extension ? | |
| The description in "" Captive Portal API Keys Registry "" gives some guidance for prefixes , etc . I assume the experts once designated can work with WFA / WBA to define proper entries ." c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 draft-ietf-capport-api f7336317c26e622bf55f989d5acd61bd115051d9b61e7a1c6bba76d94a73de49 ['4d2027d5c86257ddbe102cde5471d8ddc66d88065606ebbda2fc473823a16112', '86240d0d75d9d3d27c523ddf70efd5c00cfbb935999f354cb78d88e72fba7689', 'f7336317c26e622bf55f989d5acd61bd115051d9b61e7a1c6bba76d94a73de49', '901153d8222f5843627aff8ff5844fffbf82c4215742448f544b16b4c96ac3ba'] B """user-portal-url"" (optional, string): provides the url of a web | |
| portal with which a user can interact." | |
| 24 {} {} {} """vendor-info-url"" (optional, string): provides the URL of a | |
| webpage or site on which the operator of the network has | |
| information that it wishes to share with the user (e.g., store | |
| info, maps, flight status, or entertainment)." "As discussed in , define an IANA registry for extending keys use for Captive Portal API . | |
| thanks for the comments . Please take another pass ! | |
| Should we define an IANA registry for adding new keys ? | |
| Yes , yes we should . | |
| and i already commented in the PR , but if possible it would be beneficial to have some distinction between IETF or a relevant organization ( like WFA , WBA ) requested keys vs from some individual organization | |
| Would we want to suggest having a nested dictionary format for organization - specific extensions ? Like "" wba "" as a key to a dictionary ; or a sub - dictionary indicating that there are WISPr - related settings to be aware of ? | |
| i think it would be a good idea . We have seen WBA start to take active interest in the documents . Also there 's work happening in WFA that could benefit from having an extension point | |
| RFC 6648 might suggest otherwise . If there are things that a group wants to add that are truly unique to that group , this is probably fine . | |
| Yes , I think that more than having per - group keys ( with almost certain overlap ) , I 'd imagine that compatibility with certain technologies would be handled via these sub - dictionaries , such as what I mentioned for WISPr . Not sure how critical mentioning this is in the document though . | |
| Can we call this one done ? | |
| I 'm assuming we will go down the path of defining an IANA registry with access technology specific extension ? | |
| The description in "" Captive Portal API Keys Registry "" gives some guidance for prefixes , etc . I assume the experts once designated can work with WFA / WBA to define proper entries ." c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 draft-ietf-capport-api 901153d8222f5843627aff8ff5844fffbf82c4215742448f544b16b4c96ac3ba ['4d2027d5c86257ddbe102cde5471d8ddc66d88065606ebbda2fc473823a16112', '86240d0d75d9d3d27c523ddf70efd5c00cfbb935999f354cb78d88e72fba7689', 'f7336317c26e622bf55f989d5acd61bd115051d9b61e7a1c6bba76d94a73de49', '901153d8222f5843627aff8ff5844fffbf82c4215742448f544b16b4c96ac3ba'] B """vendor-info-url"" (optional, string): provides the url of a | |
| webpage or site on which the operator of the network has | |
| information that it wishes to share with the user (e.g., store | |
| info, maps, flight status, or entertainment)." | |
| 24 {} {} {} "The valid JSON keys can be extended by adding entries to the Captive | |
| Portal API Keys Registry iana-section. If a client receives a key | |
| that it does not recognize, it MUST ignore the key and any associated | |
| values. All keys other than the ones defined in this document as | |
| ""required"" will be considered optional." "As discussed in , define an IANA registry for extending keys use for Captive Portal API . | |
| thanks for the comments . Please take another pass ! | |
| Should we define an IANA registry for adding new keys ? | |
| Yes , yes we should . | |
| and i already commented in the PR , but if possible it would be beneficial to have some distinction between IETF or a relevant organization ( like WFA , WBA ) requested keys vs from some individual organization | |
| Would we want to suggest having a nested dictionary format for organization - specific extensions ? Like "" wba "" as a key to a dictionary ; or a sub - dictionary indicating that there are WISPr - related settings to be aware of ? | |
| i think it would be a good idea . We have seen WBA start to take active interest in the documents . Also there 's work happening in WFA that could benefit from having an extension point | |
| RFC 6648 might suggest otherwise . If there are things that a group wants to add that are truly unique to that group , this is probably fine . | |
| Yes , I think that more than having per - group keys ( with almost certain overlap ) , I 'd imagine that compatibility with certain technologies would be handled via these sub - dictionaries , such as what I mentioned for WISPr . Not sure how critical mentioning this is in the document though . | |
| Can we call this one done ? | |
| I 'm assuming we will go down the path of defining an IANA registry with access technology specific extension ? | |
| The description in "" Captive Portal API Keys Registry "" gives some guidance for prefixes , etc . I assume the experts once designated can work with WFA / WBA to define proper entries ." c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 draft-ietf-capport-api 64c0de0ad522f2a79eee51e3e488a90997ce61ec7f496acfd52bbad315674a57 ['64c0de0ad522f2a79eee51e3e488a90997ce61ec7f496acfd52bbad315674a57'] B "the valid json keys can be extended by adding entries to the captive | |
| portal api keys registry iana-section. if a client receives a key | |
| that it does not recognize, it must ignore the key and any associated | |
| values. all keys other than the ones defined in this document as | |
| ""required"" will be considered optional." | |
| 24 {} {} {} "IANA is requested to create a registration for an ""application/ | |
| captive+json"" media type (iana-json) and a registry for fields in | |
| that format (iana-field-reg)." "As discussed in , define an IANA registry for extending keys use for Captive Portal API . | |
| thanks for the comments . Please take another pass ! | |
| Should we define an IANA registry for adding new keys ? | |
| Yes , yes we should . | |
| and i already commented in the PR , but if possible it would be beneficial to have some distinction between IETF or a relevant organization ( like WFA , WBA ) requested keys vs from some individual organization | |
| Would we want to suggest having a nested dictionary format for organization - specific extensions ? Like "" wba "" as a key to a dictionary ; or a sub - dictionary indicating that there are WISPr - related settings to be aware of ? | |
| i think it would be a good idea . We have seen WBA start to take active interest in the documents . Also there 's work happening in WFA that could benefit from having an extension point | |
| RFC 6648 might suggest otherwise . If there are things that a group wants to add that are truly unique to that group , this is probably fine . | |
| Yes , I think that more than having per - group keys ( with almost certain overlap ) , I 'd imagine that compatibility with certain technologies would be handled via these sub - dictionaries , such as what I mentioned for WISPr . Not sure how critical mentioning this is in the document though . | |
| Can we call this one done ? | |
| I 'm assuming we will go down the path of defining an IANA registry with access technology specific extension ? | |
| The description in "" Captive Portal API Keys Registry "" gives some guidance for prefixes , etc . I assume the experts once designated can work with WFA / WBA to define proper entries ." c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 draft-ietf-capport-api 891503eba61e0fb48e650db02d8d3697263d3d7436b2324648e3761df820ff0e ['891503eba61e0fb48e650db02d8d3697263d3d7436b2324648e3761df820ff0e'] B "iana is requested to create a registration for an ""application/ | |
| captive+json"" media type (iana-json) and a registry for fields in | |
| that format (iana-field-reg)." | |
| 24 {} {} {} "IANA is asked to create and maintain a new registry called ""Captive | |
| Portal API Keys"", which will reserve JSON keys for use in Captive | |
| Portal API data structures. The initial contents of this registry | |
| are provided in json-keys." "As discussed in , define an IANA registry for extending keys use for Captive Portal API . | |
| thanks for the comments . Please take another pass ! | |
| Should we define an IANA registry for adding new keys ? | |
| Yes , yes we should . | |
| and i already commented in the PR , but if possible it would be beneficial to have some distinction between IETF or a relevant organization ( like WFA , WBA ) requested keys vs from some individual organization | |
| Would we want to suggest having a nested dictionary format for organization - specific extensions ? Like "" wba "" as a key to a dictionary ; or a sub - dictionary indicating that there are WISPr - related settings to be aware of ? | |
| i think it would be a good idea . We have seen WBA start to take active interest in the documents . Also there 's work happening in WFA that could benefit from having an extension point | |
| RFC 6648 might suggest otherwise . If there are things that a group wants to add that are truly unique to that group , this is probably fine . | |
| Yes , I think that more than having per - group keys ( with almost certain overlap ) , I 'd imagine that compatibility with certain technologies would be handled via these sub - dictionaries , such as what I mentioned for WISPr . Not sure how critical mentioning this is in the document though . | |
| Can we call this one done ? | |
| I 'm assuming we will go down the path of defining an IANA registry with access technology specific extension ? | |
| The description in "" Captive Portal API Keys Registry "" gives some guidance for prefixes , etc . I assume the experts once designated can work with WFA / WBA to define proper entries ." c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 draft-ietf-capport-api 772fd8989a24cb1f361dbb3c89af42a39379d577bff48ecbc34edda9dc62fcd1 ['772fd8989a24cb1f361dbb3c89af42a39379d577bff48ecbc34edda9dc62fcd1', 'c4044eee02672a21627677fb7c6a8e74fbf4d3a8546d93b160edf5384c505bd2', '04fa3bda5c115c8d4d012a73d694c64470994a2bb3fc7a5f9c5db0a5efa81316', '584946e1f059392c32673507c0c620217cda0ae3b9bc736ac3b57da498a74d9d', '3a2ef5283643c72847c2eedd377c455954c78113ac5f4eee4ac7e2096e631dae'] B "iana is asked to create and maintain a new registry called ""captive | |
| portal api keys"", which will reserve json keys for use in captive | |
| portal api data structures. the initial contents of this registry | |
| are provided in json-keys." | |
| 24 {} {} {} The JSON key being registered, in string format. "As discussed in , define an IANA registry for extending keys use for Captive Portal API . | |
| thanks for the comments . Please take another pass ! | |
| Should we define an IANA registry for adding new keys ? | |
| Yes , yes we should . | |
| and i already commented in the PR , but if possible it would be beneficial to have some distinction between IETF or a relevant organization ( like WFA , WBA ) requested keys vs from some individual organization | |
| Would we want to suggest having a nested dictionary format for organization - specific extensions ? Like "" wba "" as a key to a dictionary ; or a sub - dictionary indicating that there are WISPr - related settings to be aware of ? | |
| i think it would be a good idea . We have seen WBA start to take active interest in the documents . Also there 's work happening in WFA that could benefit from having an extension point | |
| RFC 6648 might suggest otherwise . If there are things that a group wants to add that are truly unique to that group , this is probably fine . | |
| Yes , I think that more than having per - group keys ( with almost certain overlap ) , I 'd imagine that compatibility with certain technologies would be handled via these sub - dictionaries , such as what I mentioned for WISPr . Not sure how critical mentioning this is in the document though . | |
| Can we call this one done ? | |
| I 'm assuming we will go down the path of defining an IANA registry with access technology specific extension ? | |
| The description in "" Captive Portal API Keys Registry "" gives some guidance for prefixes , etc . I assume the experts once designated can work with WFA / WBA to define proper entries ." c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 draft-ietf-capport-api c4044eee02672a21627677fb7c6a8e74fbf4d3a8546d93b160edf5384c505bd2 ['772fd8989a24cb1f361dbb3c89af42a39379d577bff48ecbc34edda9dc62fcd1', 'c4044eee02672a21627677fb7c6a8e74fbf4d3a8546d93b160edf5384c505bd2', '04fa3bda5c115c8d4d012a73d694c64470994a2bb3fc7a5f9c5db0a5efa81316', '584946e1f059392c32673507c0c620217cda0ae3b9bc736ac3b57da498a74d9d', '3a2ef5283643c72847c2eedd377c455954c78113ac5f4eee4ac7e2096e631dae'] B the json key being registered, in string format. | |
| 24 {} {} {} "The type of the JSON value to be stored, as one of the value types | |
| defined in RFC8259." "As discussed in , define an IANA registry for extending keys use for Captive Portal API . | |
| thanks for the comments . Please take another pass ! | |
| Should we define an IANA registry for adding new keys ? | |
| Yes , yes we should . | |
| and i already commented in the PR , but if possible it would be beneficial to have some distinction between IETF or a relevant organization ( like WFA , WBA ) requested keys vs from some individual organization | |
| Would we want to suggest having a nested dictionary format for organization - specific extensions ? Like "" wba "" as a key to a dictionary ; or a sub - dictionary indicating that there are WISPr - related settings to be aware of ? | |
| i think it would be a good idea . We have seen WBA start to take active interest in the documents . Also there 's work happening in WFA that could benefit from having an extension point | |
| RFC 6648 might suggest otherwise . If there are things that a group wants to add that are truly unique to that group , this is probably fine . | |
| Yes , I think that more than having per - group keys ( with almost certain overlap ) , I 'd imagine that compatibility with certain technologies would be handled via these sub - dictionaries , such as what I mentioned for WISPr . Not sure how critical mentioning this is in the document though . | |
| Can we call this one done ? | |
| I 'm assuming we will go down the path of defining an IANA registry with access technology specific extension ? | |
| The description in "" Captive Portal API Keys Registry "" gives some guidance for prefixes , etc . I assume the experts once designated can work with WFA / WBA to define proper entries ." c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 draft-ietf-capport-api 04fa3bda5c115c8d4d012a73d694c64470994a2bb3fc7a5f9c5db0a5efa81316 ['772fd8989a24cb1f361dbb3c89af42a39379d577bff48ecbc34edda9dc62fcd1', 'c4044eee02672a21627677fb7c6a8e74fbf4d3a8546d93b160edf5384c505bd2', '04fa3bda5c115c8d4d012a73d694c64470994a2bb3fc7a5f9c5db0a5efa81316', '584946e1f059392c32673507c0c620217cda0ae3b9bc736ac3b57da498a74d9d', '3a2ef5283643c72847c2eedd377c455954c78113ac5f4eee4ac7e2096e631dae'] B "the type of the json value to be stored, as one of the value types | |
| defined in rfc8259." | |
| 24 {} {} {} "A brief description explaining the meaning of the value, how it | |
| might be used, and/or how it should be interpreted by clients." "As discussed in , define an IANA registry for extending keys use for Captive Portal API . | |
| thanks for the comments . Please take another pass ! | |
| Should we define an IANA registry for adding new keys ? | |
| Yes , yes we should . | |
| and i already commented in the PR , but if possible it would be beneficial to have some distinction between IETF or a relevant organization ( like WFA , WBA ) requested keys vs from some individual organization | |
| Would we want to suggest having a nested dictionary format for organization - specific extensions ? Like "" wba "" as a key to a dictionary ; or a sub - dictionary indicating that there are WISPr - related settings to be aware of ? | |
| i think it would be a good idea . We have seen WBA start to take active interest in the documents . Also there 's work happening in WFA that could benefit from having an extension point | |
| RFC 6648 might suggest otherwise . If there are things that a group wants to add that are truly unique to that group , this is probably fine . | |
| Yes , I think that more than having per - group keys ( with almost certain overlap ) , I 'd imagine that compatibility with certain technologies would be handled via these sub - dictionaries , such as what I mentioned for WISPr . Not sure how critical mentioning this is in the document though . | |
| Can we call this one done ? | |
| I 'm assuming we will go down the path of defining an IANA registry with access technology specific extension ? | |
| The description in "" Captive Portal API Keys Registry "" gives some guidance for prefixes , etc . I assume the experts once designated can work with WFA / WBA to define proper entries ." c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 draft-ietf-capport-api 584946e1f059392c32673507c0c620217cda0ae3b9bc736ac3b57da498a74d9d ['772fd8989a24cb1f361dbb3c89af42a39379d577bff48ecbc34edda9dc62fcd1', 'c4044eee02672a21627677fb7c6a8e74fbf4d3a8546d93b160edf5384c505bd2', '04fa3bda5c115c8d4d012a73d694c64470994a2bb3fc7a5f9c5db0a5efa81316', '584946e1f059392c32673507c0c620217cda0ae3b9bc736ac3b57da498a74d9d', '3a2ef5283643c72847c2eedd377c455954c78113ac5f4eee4ac7e2096e631dae'] B "a brief description explaining the meaning of the value, how it | |
| might be used, and/or how it should be interpreted by clients." | |
| 24 {} {} {} "New assignments for Captive Portal API Keys Registry will be | |
| administered by IANA through Expert Review RFC8126. The Designated | |
| Expert is expected to validate the existence of documentation | |
| describing new keys in a permanent publicly available specification. | |
| The expert is expected to validate that new keys have a clear meaning | |
| and do not create unnecessary confusion or overlap with existing | |
| keys. Keys that are specific to non-generic use cases, particularly | |
| ones that are not specified as part of an IETF document, are | |
| encouraged to use a domain-specific prefix." "As discussed in , define an IANA registry for extending keys use for Captive Portal API . | |
| thanks for the comments . Please take another pass ! | |
| Should we define an IANA registry for adding new keys ? | |
| Yes , yes we should . | |
| and i already commented in the PR , but if possible it would be beneficial to have some distinction between IETF or a relevant organization ( like WFA , WBA ) requested keys vs from some individual organization | |
| Would we want to suggest having a nested dictionary format for organization - specific extensions ? Like "" wba "" as a key to a dictionary ; or a sub - dictionary indicating that there are WISPr - related settings to be aware of ? | |
| i think it would be a good idea . We have seen WBA start to take active interest in the documents . Also there 's work happening in WFA that could benefit from having an extension point | |
| RFC 6648 might suggest otherwise . If there are things that a group wants to add that are truly unique to that group , this is probably fine . | |
| Yes , I think that more than having per - group keys ( with almost certain overlap ) , I 'd imagine that compatibility with certain technologies would be handled via these sub - dictionaries , such as what I mentioned for WISPr . Not sure how critical mentioning this is in the document though . | |
| Can we call this one done ? | |
| I 'm assuming we will go down the path of defining an IANA registry with access technology specific extension ? | |
| The description in "" Captive Portal API Keys Registry "" gives some guidance for prefixes , etc . I assume the experts once designated can work with WFA / WBA to define proper entries ." c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 c812657b83622b45bd66112e6e3a37217e88b0e3 draft-ietf-capport-api 3a2ef5283643c72847c2eedd377c455954c78113ac5f4eee4ac7e2096e631dae ['772fd8989a24cb1f361dbb3c89af42a39379d577bff48ecbc34edda9dc62fcd1', 'c4044eee02672a21627677fb7c6a8e74fbf4d3a8546d93b160edf5384c505bd2', '04fa3bda5c115c8d4d012a73d694c64470994a2bb3fc7a5f9c5db0a5efa81316', '584946e1f059392c32673507c0c620217cda0ae3b9bc736ac3b57da498a74d9d', '3a2ef5283643c72847c2eedd377c455954c78113ac5f4eee4ac7e2096e631dae'] B "new assignments for captive portal api keys registry will be | |
| administered by iana through expert review rfc8126. the designated | |
| expert is expected to validate the existence of documentation | |
| describing new keys in a permanent publicly available specification. | |
| the expert is expected to validate that new keys have a clear meaning | |
| and do not create unnecessary confusion or overlap with existing | |
| keys. keys that are specific to non-generic use cases, particularly | |
| ones that are not specified as part of an ietf document, are | |
| encouraged to use a domain-specific prefix." | |
| 14 {} {} {} "The purpose of accessing the Captive Portal API over an HTTPS | |
| connection is twofold: first, the encrypted connection protects the | |
| integrity and confidentiality of the API exhange from other parties | |
| on the local network; and second, it provides the client of the API | |
| an opportunity to authenticate the server that is hosting the API. | |
| This authentication is aimed at allowing a user to be reasonably | |
| confident that the entity providing the Captive Portal API has a | |
| valid certificate for the hostname in the URI (such as | |
| ""example.com""). The hostname of the API SHOULD be displayed to the | |
| user in order to indicate the entity which is providing the API | |
| service." "Addresses , with the decisions made at the last IETF meeting | |
| Added text based on Martin 's suggestions | |
| As pointed out , we should describe the model we assume for API server authentication . Then we need to describe the requirements on this . An important point here is that CRL or OCSP checking are likely to fail for a captive UE . A recommendation for servers to use OCSP stapling is likely necessary ( whitelisting CRL or OCSP servers is probably workable , but OCSP stapling is a far superior solution ) . | |
| This needs to mention AIA chasing as well . Some client implementations do that ( others think that it 's a crazy idea , but that 's not a debate we need to enter into here).looks good ." 397bdfa4ac79e5d09496a979c7a714a6c1033bcb 397bdfa4ac79e5d09496a979c7a714a6c1033bcb draft-ietf-capport-api e530212707dbaf37e3ce6ca69c6aa6f3d4bf2f0e45caedfba811023dabe09cab ['e530212707dbaf37e3ce6ca69c6aa6f3d4bf2f0e45caedfba811023dabe09cab', 'eea03a92694208e0301ac153c7d9c652983498c9e6932acdb32d3b0d60c05767', '0b3bd10a01f16cb3f24aa469352b8513440c205c282476e05efc62e6a86f37e3', 'ec5f08681ed590d8f1840fb99d2f5c64f3045160a717577607bcf89fc07522a3'] B "the purpose of accessing the captive portal api over an https | |
| connection is twofold: first, the encrypted connection protects the | |
| integrity and confidentiality of the api exhange from other parties | |
| on the local network; and second, it provides the client of the api | |
| an opportunity to authenticate the server that is hosting the api. | |
| this authentication is aimed at allowing a user to be reasonably | |
| confident that the entity providing the captive portal api has a | |
| valid certificate for the hostname in the uri (such as | |
| ""example.com""). the hostname of the api should be displayed to the | |
| user in order to indicate the entity which is providing the api | |
| service." | |
| 14 {} {} {} "Clients performing revocation checking will need some means of | |
| accessing revocation information for certificates presented by the | |
| API server. Online Certificate Status Protocol RFC6960 (OCSP) | |
| stapling, using the TLS Certificate Status Request extension RFC6066 | |
| SHOULD be used. OCSP stapling allows a client to perform revocation | |
| checks without initiating new connections. To allow for other forms | |
| of revocation checking, a captive network could permit connections to | |
| OCSP responders or Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) that are | |
| referenced by certificates provided by the API server." "Addresses , with the decisions made at the last IETF meeting | |
| Added text based on Martin 's suggestions | |
| As pointed out , we should describe the model we assume for API server authentication . Then we need to describe the requirements on this . An important point here is that CRL or OCSP checking are likely to fail for a captive UE . A recommendation for servers to use OCSP stapling is likely necessary ( whitelisting CRL or OCSP servers is probably workable , but OCSP stapling is a far superior solution ) . | |
| This needs to mention AIA chasing as well . Some client implementations do that ( others think that it 's a crazy idea , but that 's not a debate we need to enter into here).looks good ." 397bdfa4ac79e5d09496a979c7a714a6c1033bcb 397bdfa4ac79e5d09496a979c7a714a6c1033bcb draft-ietf-capport-api eea03a92694208e0301ac153c7d9c652983498c9e6932acdb32d3b0d60c05767 ['e530212707dbaf37e3ce6ca69c6aa6f3d4bf2f0e45caedfba811023dabe09cab', 'eea03a92694208e0301ac153c7d9c652983498c9e6932acdb32d3b0d60c05767', '0b3bd10a01f16cb3f24aa469352b8513440c205c282476e05efc62e6a86f37e3', 'ec5f08681ed590d8f1840fb99d2f5c64f3045160a717577607bcf89fc07522a3'] B "clients performing revocation checking will need some means of | |
| accessing revocation information for certificates presented by the | |
| api server. online certificate status protocol rfc6960 (ocsp) | |
| stapling, using the tls certificate status request extension rfc6066 | |
| should be used. ocsp stapling allows a client to perform revocation | |
| checks without initiating new connections. to allow for other forms | |
| of revocation checking, a captive network could permit connections to | |
| ocsp responders or certificate revocation lists (crls) that are | |
| referenced by certificates provided by the api server." | |
| 14 {} {} {} "Certificates with missing intermediate certificates that rely on | |
| clients validating the certificate chain using the URI specified in | |
| the Authority Information Access (AIA) extension RFC5280 SHOULD NOT | |
| be used by the Captive Portal API server. If the certificates do | |
| require the use of AIA, the captive network will need to allow client | |
| access to the host specified in the URI." "Addresses , with the decisions made at the last IETF meeting | |
| Added text based on Martin 's suggestions | |
| As pointed out , we should describe the model we assume for API server authentication . Then we need to describe the requirements on this . An important point here is that CRL or OCSP checking are likely to fail for a captive UE . A recommendation for servers to use OCSP stapling is likely necessary ( whitelisting CRL or OCSP servers is probably workable , but OCSP stapling is a far superior solution ) . | |
| This needs to mention AIA chasing as well . Some client implementations do that ( others think that it 's a crazy idea , but that 's not a debate we need to enter into here).looks good ." 397bdfa4ac79e5d09496a979c7a714a6c1033bcb 397bdfa4ac79e5d09496a979c7a714a6c1033bcb draft-ietf-capport-api 0b3bd10a01f16cb3f24aa469352b8513440c205c282476e05efc62e6a86f37e3 ['e530212707dbaf37e3ce6ca69c6aa6f3d4bf2f0e45caedfba811023dabe09cab', 'eea03a92694208e0301ac153c7d9c652983498c9e6932acdb32d3b0d60c05767', '0b3bd10a01f16cb3f24aa469352b8513440c205c282476e05efc62e6a86f37e3', 'ec5f08681ed590d8f1840fb99d2f5c64f3045160a717577607bcf89fc07522a3'] B "certificates with missing intermediate certificates that rely on | |
| clients validating the certificate chain using the uri specified in | |
| the authority information access (aia) extension rfc5280 should not | |
| be used by the captive portal api server. if the certificates do | |
| require the use of aia, the captive network will need to allow client | |
| access to the host specified in the uri." | |
| 14 {} {} {} "If the client is unable to validate the certificate presented by the | |
| API server, it MUST NOT proceed with any of the behavior for API | |
| interaction described in this document. The client will proceed to | |
| interact with the captive network as if the API capabilities were not | |
| present. It may still be possible for the user to access the network | |
| by being redirected to a web portal." "Addresses , with the decisions made at the last IETF meeting | |
| Added text based on Martin 's suggestions | |
| As pointed out , we should describe the model we assume for API server authentication . Then we need to describe the requirements on this . An important point here is that CRL or OCSP checking are likely to fail for a captive UE . A recommendation for servers to use OCSP stapling is likely necessary ( whitelisting CRL or OCSP servers is probably workable , but OCSP stapling is a far superior solution ) . | |
| This needs to mention AIA chasing as well . Some client implementations do that ( others think that it 's a crazy idea , but that 's not a debate we need to enter into here).looks good ." 397bdfa4ac79e5d09496a979c7a714a6c1033bcb 397bdfa4ac79e5d09496a979c7a714a6c1033bcb draft-ietf-capport-api ec5f08681ed590d8f1840fb99d2f5c64f3045160a717577607bcf89fc07522a3 ['e530212707dbaf37e3ce6ca69c6aa6f3d4bf2f0e45caedfba811023dabe09cab', 'eea03a92694208e0301ac153c7d9c652983498c9e6932acdb32d3b0d60c05767', '0b3bd10a01f16cb3f24aa469352b8513440c205c282476e05efc62e6a86f37e3', 'ec5f08681ed590d8f1840fb99d2f5c64f3045160a717577607bcf89fc07522a3'] B "if the client is unable to validate the certificate presented by the | |
| api server, it must not proceed with any of the behavior for api | |
| interaction described in this document. the client will proceed to | |
| interact with the captive network as if the api capabilities were not | |
| present. it may still be possible for the user to access the network | |
| by being redirected to a web portal." | |
| 13 {} {} {} "The Captive Portal API data structures are specified in JavaScript | |
| Object Notation (JSON) RFC7159." "Satisfied | |
| application / json is fine in the general sense , but if you want to ever do things like versioning , then a media type is important . Crib from if you want a recent example . | |
| Discussed in London , consensus to use a new media type . | |
| I am ok with the text ." 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 draft-ietf-capport-api c4208183f3fb4ae03e7e33757f71d4b807a8780b5da7e4c64d4e627bc0d9166c ['c4208183f3fb4ae03e7e33757f71d4b807a8780b5da7e4c64d4e627bc0d9166c', 'd4215fa3519965919cf2d10b7d9ee7c617729c3f629b241381a0d98db4e39060'] A "the captive portal api data structures are specified in javascript | |
| object notation (json) rfc7159." | |
| 13 {} {} {} "The Captive Portal API data structures are specified in JavaScript | |
| Object Notation (JSON) RFC7159. Requests and responses for the | |
| Captive Portal API use the ""application/captive+json"" media type. | |
| Clients SHOULD include this media type as an Accept header in their | |
| GET requests, and servers MUST mark this media type as their Content- | |
| Type header in responses." "Satisfied | |
| application / json is fine in the general sense , but if you want to ever do things like versioning , then a media type is important . Crib from if you want a recent example . | |
| Discussed in London , consensus to use a new media type . | |
| I am ok with the text ." 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 draft-ietf-capport-api d4215fa3519965919cf2d10b7d9ee7c617729c3f629b241381a0d98db4e39060 ['c4208183f3fb4ae03e7e33757f71d4b807a8780b5da7e4c64d4e627bc0d9166c', 'd4215fa3519965919cf2d10b7d9ee7c617729c3f629b241381a0d98db4e39060'] B "the captive portal api data structures are specified in javascript | |
| object notation (json) rfc7159. requests and responses for the | |
| captive portal api use the ""application/captive+json"" media type. | |
| clients should include this media type as an accept header in their | |
| get requests, and servers must mark this media type as their content- | |
| type header in responses." | |
| 13 {} {} {} "This document registers the media type for Captive Portal API JSON | |
| text, ""application/captive+json""." "Satisfied | |
| application / json is fine in the general sense , but if you want to ever do things like versioning , then a media type is important . Crib from if you want a recent example . | |
| Discussed in London , consensus to use a new media type . | |
| I am ok with the text ." 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 draft-ietf-capport-api 3ffa381ee7e93f4b40fe3b61dfd886e415aa9dd3c7d4ee820652e67e1b5d9f6a ['3ffa381ee7e93f4b40fe3b61dfd886e415aa9dd3c7d4ee820652e67e1b5d9f6a', '32184fbbbffddf91b37a8529649e611a0cde173dfb6395d0cbaf24e2e5883dfb', '2483c8cd4b65b13a613b1005da3cfe42af057144583d33637ca599694216987b', '7acfa832cc398a964a6553304429db691069c523fb750c0b3d51bb24ad8e992f', '7820d87582e9da0fab5d915aac5fe8c31e5553da3e734e8de6e94e6c1613d04e'] B "this document registers the media type for captive portal api json | |
| text, ""application/captive+json""." | |
| 13 {} {} {} "Encoding considerations are identical to those specified for the | |
| ""application/json"" media type." "Satisfied | |
| application / json is fine in the general sense , but if you want to ever do things like versioning , then a media type is important . Crib from if you want a recent example . | |
| Discussed in London , consensus to use a new media type . | |
| I am ok with the text ." 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 draft-ietf-capport-api 32184fbbbffddf91b37a8529649e611a0cde173dfb6395d0cbaf24e2e5883dfb ['3ffa381ee7e93f4b40fe3b61dfd886e415aa9dd3c7d4ee820652e67e1b5d9f6a', '32184fbbbffddf91b37a8529649e611a0cde173dfb6395d0cbaf24e2e5883dfb', '2483c8cd4b65b13a613b1005da3cfe42af057144583d33637ca599694216987b', '7acfa832cc398a964a6553304429db691069c523fb750c0b3d51bb24ad8e992f', '7820d87582e9da0fab5d915aac5fe8c31e5553da3e734e8de6e94e6c1613d04e'] B "encoding considerations are identical to those specified for the | |
| ""application/json"" media type." | |
| 13 {} {} {} "This document specifies format of conforming messages and the | |
| interpretation thereof." "Satisfied | |
| application / json is fine in the general sense , but if you want to ever do things like versioning , then a media type is important . Crib from if you want a recent example . | |
| Discussed in London , consensus to use a new media type . | |
| I am ok with the text ." 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 draft-ietf-capport-api 2483c8cd4b65b13a613b1005da3cfe42af057144583d33637ca599694216987b ['3ffa381ee7e93f4b40fe3b61dfd886e415aa9dd3c7d4ee820652e67e1b5d9f6a', '32184fbbbffddf91b37a8529649e611a0cde173dfb6395d0cbaf24e2e5883dfb', '2483c8cd4b65b13a613b1005da3cfe42af057144583d33637ca599694216987b', '7acfa832cc398a964a6553304429db691069c523fb750c0b3d51bb24ad8e992f', '7820d87582e9da0fab5d915aac5fe8c31e5553da3e734e8de6e94e6c1613d04e'] B "this document specifies format of conforming messages and the | |
| interpretation thereof." | |
| 13 {} {} {} "This media type is intended to be used by servers presenting the | |
| Captive Portal API, and clients connecting to such captive | |
| networks." "Satisfied | |
| application / json is fine in the general sense , but if you want to ever do things like versioning , then a media type is important . Crib from if you want a recent example . | |
| Discussed in London , consensus to use a new media type . | |
| I am ok with the text ." 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 draft-ietf-capport-api 7acfa832cc398a964a6553304429db691069c523fb750c0b3d51bb24ad8e992f ['3ffa381ee7e93f4b40fe3b61dfd886e415aa9dd3c7d4ee820652e67e1b5d9f6a', '32184fbbbffddf91b37a8529649e611a0cde173dfb6395d0cbaf24e2e5883dfb', '2483c8cd4b65b13a613b1005da3cfe42af057144583d33637ca599694216987b', '7acfa832cc398a964a6553304429db691069c523fb750c0b3d51bb24ad8e992f', '7820d87582e9da0fab5d915aac5fe8c31e5553da3e734e8de6e94e6c1613d04e'] B "this media type is intended to be used by servers presenting the | |
| captive portal api, and clients connecting to such captive | |
| networks." | |
| 13 {} {} {} See Authors' Addresses section. "Satisfied | |
| application / json is fine in the general sense , but if you want to ever do things like versioning , then a media type is important . Crib from if you want a recent example . | |
| Discussed in London , consensus to use a new media type . | |
| I am ok with the text ." 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 55cb00380bbc54050ce6d522fd78709754c50506 draft-ietf-capport-api 7820d87582e9da0fab5d915aac5fe8c31e5553da3e734e8de6e94e6c1613d04e ['3ffa381ee7e93f4b40fe3b61dfd886e415aa9dd3c7d4ee820652e67e1b5d9f6a', '32184fbbbffddf91b37a8529649e611a0cde173dfb6395d0cbaf24e2e5883dfb', '2483c8cd4b65b13a613b1005da3cfe42af057144583d33637ca599694216987b', '7acfa832cc398a964a6553304429db691069c523fb750c0b3d51bb24ad8e992f', '7820d87582e9da0fab5d915aac5fe8c31e5553da3e734e8de6e94e6c1613d04e'] B see authors' addresses section. | |
| 12 {} {} {} "Note that the use of the hmac-key is not defined in this document, | |
| but is intended for use in the enforcement step of the Captive Portal | |
| Architecture." "Satisfies | |
| looks good . | |
| Should we hold the addition of this until we have something that depends on it being in the API ? | |
| We certainly can , although if we want to use a key as discussed in the WG meeting for the purposes of ICMP validation , having a way to add a key here is nice for removing a bootstrapping step . Hopefully we can get an updated ICMP document out with the API document , and they can reference one another in this way . | |
| Discussed in London , remove this . | |
| accepted" 0ec5d45db17e42118975bf23d2fd9956c351bd25 0ec5d45db17e42118975bf23d2fd9956c351bd25 draft-ietf-capport-api 39271684f9cb4e1406163e2e112b2730f54aafa2f8e725fca8d189472e3edd13 ['39271684f9cb4e1406163e2e112b2730f54aafa2f8e725fca8d189472e3edd13'] A "note that the use of the hmac-key is not defined in this document, | |
| but is intended for use in the enforcement step of the captive portal | |
| architecture." | |
| 6 {} {} {} "This document describes an HTTP API that allows hosts to interact | |
| with a Captive Portal system on a local network." "Removed language for /.well - known URI . Made serving over port 443 a SHOULD requirement . Other editorial changes | |
| Added your updated language , should be good to go . | |
| I do n't think that we need this . 7710 gives us an entire URI , as can PvD. | |
| I agree that we can use the URI from the DHCP option or from PvD. The reason I went this route was to avoid the scheme that was in the API draft to start with , which seemed to be : If you access the 7710 URI with a GET , you 'll receive the HTTP for the user interactive portal If you access the 7710 URI with a POST , you 'll get the JSON API That seemed problematic ( a ) because it implies the user portal and API are co - located and ( b ) it seemed overly complex . Do you have a preference for what methods are valid to access the JSON API , and whether we should specify that the URI needs to be JSON ? My concern was that if the DHCP option or whatever pointed to something that was clearly .html , something 's wrong , and using a well - known JSON URI to compare against would be a way to detect that . | |
| Thoughts on the method for fetching the JSON API , or if that 's a non - issue ? | |
| Let 's take this to the list . | |
| PR fixes the well - known URI language . For now there is indication of Accept and Conent - Type header usage but we have n't explicitly called it out until we get a final decision . We can close this issue though ." 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e draft-ietf-capport-api 15a1fb987c5ac6c49af45cadc59efea0b983199fcd6f21b197fc577779710dc1 ['15a1fb987c5ac6c49af45cadc59efea0b983199fcd6f21b197fc577779710dc1', '8ef4e85e0ad5289d42fe72e4ac6bff380441b20efea55d51eb04e58262899b6e'] A "this document describes an http api that allows hosts to interact | |
| with a captive portal system on a local network." | |
| 6 {} {} {} "This document describes an HTTP API that allows hosts to interact | |
| with a Captive Portal system." "Removed language for /.well - known URI . Made serving over port 443 a SHOULD requirement . Other editorial changes | |
| Added your updated language , should be good to go . | |
| I do n't think that we need this . 7710 gives us an entire URI , as can PvD. | |
| I agree that we can use the URI from the DHCP option or from PvD. The reason I went this route was to avoid the scheme that was in the API draft to start with , which seemed to be : If you access the 7710 URI with a GET , you 'll receive the HTTP for the user interactive portal If you access the 7710 URI with a POST , you 'll get the JSON API That seemed problematic ( a ) because it implies the user portal and API are co - located and ( b ) it seemed overly complex . Do you have a preference for what methods are valid to access the JSON API , and whether we should specify that the URI needs to be JSON ? My concern was that if the DHCP option or whatever pointed to something that was clearly .html , something 's wrong , and using a well - known JSON URI to compare against would be a way to detect that . | |
| Thoughts on the method for fetching the JSON API , or if that 's a non - issue ? | |
| Let 's take this to the list . | |
| PR fixes the well - known URI language . For now there is indication of Accept and Conent - Type header usage but we have n't explicitly called it out until we get a final decision . We can close this issue though ." 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e draft-ietf-capport-api 8ef4e85e0ad5289d42fe72e4ac6bff380441b20efea55d51eb04e58262899b6e ['15a1fb987c5ac6c49af45cadc59efea0b983199fcd6f21b197fc577779710dc1', '8ef4e85e0ad5289d42fe72e4ac6bff380441b20efea55d51eb04e58262899b6e'] B "this document describes an http api that allows hosts to interact | |
| with a captive portal system." | |
| 6 {} {} {} "This document is focused on the second step. It is assumed that the | |
| location of the Captive Portal API server has been provisioned as | |
| part of the first step. The mechanism for discovering this value not | |
| covered by this document." "Removed language for /.well - known URI . Made serving over port 443 a SHOULD requirement . Other editorial changes | |
| Added your updated language , should be good to go . | |
| I do n't think that we need this . 7710 gives us an entire URI , as can PvD. | |
| I agree that we can use the URI from the DHCP option or from PvD. The reason I went this route was to avoid the scheme that was in the API draft to start with , which seemed to be : If you access the 7710 URI with a GET , you 'll receive the HTTP for the user interactive portal If you access the 7710 URI with a POST , you 'll get the JSON API That seemed problematic ( a ) because it implies the user portal and API are co - located and ( b ) it seemed overly complex . Do you have a preference for what methods are valid to access the JSON API , and whether we should specify that the URI needs to be JSON ? My concern was that if the DHCP option or whatever pointed to something that was clearly .html , something 's wrong , and using a well - known JSON URI to compare against would be a way to detect that . | |
| Thoughts on the method for fetching the JSON API , or if that 's a non - issue ? | |
| Let 's take this to the list . | |
| PR fixes the well - known URI language . For now there is indication of Accept and Conent - Type header usage but we have n't explicitly called it out until we get a final decision . We can close this issue though ." 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e draft-ietf-capport-api 983eff4560db808a25ac0eaf422fab7871379d3005eb6196287c5cc0b15e0698 ['983eff4560db808a25ac0eaf422fab7871379d3005eb6196287c5cc0b15e0698', '0fd8cc39c8e62b4dc8099161e2212f5dd01609717bfb06026cdc0d97be8d3fbf', '03839c0f2b99bc0fcc7ff1a492cfef4fa50083492dfb270d430f0ae41134ecad', '81ea61dbbab2f4f70aa863e88b09e2c6bae433eca3bec0e80b97a35dd1710e74', '69f7b054bdd444075d5cf93fcf6f2dc8a1d374f11504567c1452cf2a23b05dec', 'ce0a24ed072fcbb27537ca7b9f0e83e48448591f69e79e79252707b4fbaa6c39'] A "this document is focused on the second step. it is assumed that the | |
| location of the captive portal api server has been provisioned as | |
| part of the first step. the mechanism for discovering this value not | |
| covered by this document." | |
| 6 {} {} {} "In order to communicate with the captive portal API server, the URI | |
| provisioned to the host SHOULD use the form of a well-known URI | |
| RFC5785 ending with the string "".well-known/captive-portal.json"". If | |
| this suffix is not included in the URI already provisioned, a host | |
| SHOULD append the suffix when communicating to the server." "Removed language for /.well - known URI . Made serving over port 443 a SHOULD requirement . Other editorial changes | |
| Added your updated language , should be good to go . | |
| I do n't think that we need this . 7710 gives us an entire URI , as can PvD. | |
| I agree that we can use the URI from the DHCP option or from PvD. The reason I went this route was to avoid the scheme that was in the API draft to start with , which seemed to be : If you access the 7710 URI with a GET , you 'll receive the HTTP for the user interactive portal If you access the 7710 URI with a POST , you 'll get the JSON API That seemed problematic ( a ) because it implies the user portal and API are co - located and ( b ) it seemed overly complex . Do you have a preference for what methods are valid to access the JSON API , and whether we should specify that the URI needs to be JSON ? My concern was that if the DHCP option or whatever pointed to something that was clearly .html , something 's wrong , and using a well - known JSON URI to compare against would be a way to detect that . | |
| Thoughts on the method for fetching the JSON API , or if that 's a non - issue ? | |
| Let 's take this to the list . | |
| PR fixes the well - known URI language . For now there is indication of Accept and Conent - Type header usage but we have n't explicitly called it out until we get a final decision . We can close this issue though ." 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e draft-ietf-capport-api 0fd8cc39c8e62b4dc8099161e2212f5dd01609717bfb06026cdc0d97be8d3fbf ['983eff4560db808a25ac0eaf422fab7871379d3005eb6196287c5cc0b15e0698', '0fd8cc39c8e62b4dc8099161e2212f5dd01609717bfb06026cdc0d97be8d3fbf', '03839c0f2b99bc0fcc7ff1a492cfef4fa50083492dfb270d430f0ae41134ecad', '81ea61dbbab2f4f70aa863e88b09e2c6bae433eca3bec0e80b97a35dd1710e74', '69f7b054bdd444075d5cf93fcf6f2dc8a1d374f11504567c1452cf2a23b05dec', 'ce0a24ed072fcbb27537ca7b9f0e83e48448591f69e79e79252707b4fbaa6c39'] A "in order to communicate with the captive portal api server, the uri | |
| provisioned to the host should use the form of a well-known uri | |
| rfc5785 ending with the string "".well-known/captive-portal.json"". if | |
| this suffix is not included in the uri already provisioned, a host | |
| should append the suffix when communicating to the server." | |
| 6 {} {} {} "The Captive Portal API MUST be accessed using HTTP over TLS on TCP | |
| port 443 (HTTPS) RFC2818." "Removed language for /.well - known URI . Made serving over port 443 a SHOULD requirement . Other editorial changes | |
| Added your updated language , should be good to go . | |
| I do n't think that we need this . 7710 gives us an entire URI , as can PvD. | |
| I agree that we can use the URI from the DHCP option or from PvD. The reason I went this route was to avoid the scheme that was in the API draft to start with , which seemed to be : If you access the 7710 URI with a GET , you 'll receive the HTTP for the user interactive portal If you access the 7710 URI with a POST , you 'll get the JSON API That seemed problematic ( a ) because it implies the user portal and API are co - located and ( b ) it seemed overly complex . Do you have a preference for what methods are valid to access the JSON API , and whether we should specify that the URI needs to be JSON ? My concern was that if the DHCP option or whatever pointed to something that was clearly .html , something 's wrong , and using a well - known JSON URI to compare against would be a way to detect that . | |
| Thoughts on the method for fetching the JSON API , or if that 's a non - issue ? | |
| Let 's take this to the list . | |
| PR fixes the well - known URI language . For now there is indication of Accept and Conent - Type header usage but we have n't explicitly called it out until we get a final decision . We can close this issue though ." 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e draft-ietf-capport-api 03839c0f2b99bc0fcc7ff1a492cfef4fa50083492dfb270d430f0ae41134ecad ['983eff4560db808a25ac0eaf422fab7871379d3005eb6196287c5cc0b15e0698', '0fd8cc39c8e62b4dc8099161e2212f5dd01609717bfb06026cdc0d97be8d3fbf', '03839c0f2b99bc0fcc7ff1a492cfef4fa50083492dfb270d430f0ae41134ecad', '81ea61dbbab2f4f70aa863e88b09e2c6bae433eca3bec0e80b97a35dd1710e74', '69f7b054bdd444075d5cf93fcf6f2dc8a1d374f11504567c1452cf2a23b05dec', 'ce0a24ed072fcbb27537ca7b9f0e83e48448591f69e79e79252707b4fbaa6c39'] A "the captive portal api must be accessed using http over tls on tcp | |
| port 443 (https) rfc2818." | |
| 6 {} {} {} "For example, if the Captive Portal API server is hosted at | |
| example.org, the URI of the API would be: ""https://example.org/.well- | |
| known/captive-portal.json""." "Removed language for /.well - known URI . Made serving over port 443 a SHOULD requirement . Other editorial changes | |
| Added your updated language , should be good to go . | |
| I do n't think that we need this . 7710 gives us an entire URI , as can PvD. | |
| I agree that we can use the URI from the DHCP option or from PvD. The reason I went this route was to avoid the scheme that was in the API draft to start with , which seemed to be : If you access the 7710 URI with a GET , you 'll receive the HTTP for the user interactive portal If you access the 7710 URI with a POST , you 'll get the JSON API That seemed problematic ( a ) because it implies the user portal and API are co - located and ( b ) it seemed overly complex . Do you have a preference for what methods are valid to access the JSON API , and whether we should specify that the URI needs to be JSON ? My concern was that if the DHCP option or whatever pointed to something that was clearly .html , something 's wrong , and using a well - known JSON URI to compare against would be a way to detect that . | |
| Thoughts on the method for fetching the JSON API , or if that 's a non - issue ? | |
| Let 's take this to the list . | |
| PR fixes the well - known URI language . For now there is indication of Accept and Conent - Type header usage but we have n't explicitly called it out until we get a final decision . We can close this issue though ." 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e draft-ietf-capport-api 81ea61dbbab2f4f70aa863e88b09e2c6bae433eca3bec0e80b97a35dd1710e74 ['983eff4560db808a25ac0eaf422fab7871379d3005eb6196287c5cc0b15e0698', '0fd8cc39c8e62b4dc8099161e2212f5dd01609717bfb06026cdc0d97be8d3fbf', '03839c0f2b99bc0fcc7ff1a492cfef4fa50083492dfb270d430f0ae41134ecad', '81ea61dbbab2f4f70aa863e88b09e2c6bae433eca3bec0e80b97a35dd1710e74', '69f7b054bdd444075d5cf93fcf6f2dc8a1d374f11504567c1452cf2a23b05dec', 'ce0a24ed072fcbb27537ca7b9f0e83e48448591f69e79e79252707b4fbaa6c39'] A "for example, if the captive portal api server is hosted at | |
| example.org, the uri of the api would be: ""https://example.org/.well- | |
| known/captive-portal.json""." | |
| 6 {} {} {} "This document is focused on the second step. It is assumed that the | |
| location of the Captive Portal API server has been discovered by the | |
| host as part of the first step. The mechanism for discovering the | |
| API Server endpoint is not covered by this document." "Removed language for /.well - known URI . Made serving over port 443 a SHOULD requirement . Other editorial changes | |
| Added your updated language , should be good to go . | |
| I do n't think that we need this . 7710 gives us an entire URI , as can PvD. | |
| I agree that we can use the URI from the DHCP option or from PvD. The reason I went this route was to avoid the scheme that was in the API draft to start with , which seemed to be : If you access the 7710 URI with a GET , you 'll receive the HTTP for the user interactive portal If you access the 7710 URI with a POST , you 'll get the JSON API That seemed problematic ( a ) because it implies the user portal and API are co - located and ( b ) it seemed overly complex . Do you have a preference for what methods are valid to access the JSON API , and whether we should specify that the URI needs to be JSON ? My concern was that if the DHCP option or whatever pointed to something that was clearly .html , something 's wrong , and using a well - known JSON URI to compare against would be a way to detect that . | |
| Thoughts on the method for fetching the JSON API , or if that 's a non - issue ? | |
| Let 's take this to the list . | |
| PR fixes the well - known URI language . For now there is indication of Accept and Conent - Type header usage but we have n't explicitly called it out until we get a final decision . We can close this issue though ." 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e draft-ietf-capport-api 69f7b054bdd444075d5cf93fcf6f2dc8a1d374f11504567c1452cf2a23b05dec ['983eff4560db808a25ac0eaf422fab7871379d3005eb6196287c5cc0b15e0698', '0fd8cc39c8e62b4dc8099161e2212f5dd01609717bfb06026cdc0d97be8d3fbf', '03839c0f2b99bc0fcc7ff1a492cfef4fa50083492dfb270d430f0ae41134ecad', '81ea61dbbab2f4f70aa863e88b09e2c6bae433eca3bec0e80b97a35dd1710e74', '69f7b054bdd444075d5cf93fcf6f2dc8a1d374f11504567c1452cf2a23b05dec', 'ce0a24ed072fcbb27537ca7b9f0e83e48448591f69e79e79252707b4fbaa6c39'] B "this document is focused on the second step. it is assumed that the | |
| location of the captive portal api server has been discovered by the | |
| host as part of the first step. the mechanism for discovering the | |
| api server endpoint is not covered by this document." | |
| 6 {} {} {} "The URI of the API endpoint MUST be accessed using HTTP over TLS | |
| (HTTPS) and SHOULD be served on port 443 RFC2818. The host SHOULD | |
| NOT assume that the URI for a given network attachment will stay the | |
| same, and SHOULD rely on the discovery or provisioning process each | |
| time it joins the network. Depending on how the Captive Portal | |
| system is configured, the URI may be unique for each host and between | |
| sessions for the same host." "Removed language for /.well - known URI . Made serving over port 443 a SHOULD requirement . Other editorial changes | |
| Added your updated language , should be good to go . | |
| I do n't think that we need this . 7710 gives us an entire URI , as can PvD. | |
| I agree that we can use the URI from the DHCP option or from PvD. The reason I went this route was to avoid the scheme that was in the API draft to start with , which seemed to be : If you access the 7710 URI with a GET , you 'll receive the HTTP for the user interactive portal If you access the 7710 URI with a POST , you 'll get the JSON API That seemed problematic ( a ) because it implies the user portal and API are co - located and ( b ) it seemed overly complex . Do you have a preference for what methods are valid to access the JSON API , and whether we should specify that the URI needs to be JSON ? My concern was that if the DHCP option or whatever pointed to something that was clearly .html , something 's wrong , and using a well - known JSON URI to compare against would be a way to detect that . | |
| Thoughts on the method for fetching the JSON API , or if that 's a non - issue ? | |
| Let 's take this to the list . | |
| PR fixes the well - known URI language . For now there is indication of Accept and Conent - Type header usage but we have n't explicitly called it out until we get a final decision . We can close this issue though ." 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e draft-ietf-capport-api ce0a24ed072fcbb27537ca7b9f0e83e48448591f69e79e79252707b4fbaa6c39 ['983eff4560db808a25ac0eaf422fab7871379d3005eb6196287c5cc0b15e0698', '0fd8cc39c8e62b4dc8099161e2212f5dd01609717bfb06026cdc0d97be8d3fbf', '03839c0f2b99bc0fcc7ff1a492cfef4fa50083492dfb270d430f0ae41134ecad', '81ea61dbbab2f4f70aa863e88b09e2c6bae433eca3bec0e80b97a35dd1710e74', '69f7b054bdd444075d5cf93fcf6f2dc8a1d374f11504567c1452cf2a23b05dec', 'ce0a24ed072fcbb27537ca7b9f0e83e48448591f69e79e79252707b4fbaa6c39'] B "the uri of the api endpoint must be accessed using http over tls | |
| (https) and should be served on port 443 rfc2818. the host should | |
| not assume that the uri for a given network attachment will stay the | |
| same, and should rely on the discovery or provisioning process each | |
| time it joins the network. depending on how the captive portal | |
| system is configured, the uri may be unique for each host and between | |
| sessions for the same host." | |
| 6 {} {} {} "This document defines one "".well-known"" URIs using the registration | |
| procedure and template from Section 5.1 of RFC5785." "Removed language for /.well - known URI . Made serving over port 443 a SHOULD requirement . Other editorial changes | |
| Added your updated language , should be good to go . | |
| I do n't think that we need this . 7710 gives us an entire URI , as can PvD. | |
| I agree that we can use the URI from the DHCP option or from PvD. The reason I went this route was to avoid the scheme that was in the API draft to start with , which seemed to be : If you access the 7710 URI with a GET , you 'll receive the HTTP for the user interactive portal If you access the 7710 URI with a POST , you 'll get the JSON API That seemed problematic ( a ) because it implies the user portal and API are co - located and ( b ) it seemed overly complex . Do you have a preference for what methods are valid to access the JSON API , and whether we should specify that the URI needs to be JSON ? My concern was that if the DHCP option or whatever pointed to something that was clearly .html , something 's wrong , and using a well - known JSON URI to compare against would be a way to detect that . | |
| Thoughts on the method for fetching the JSON API , or if that 's a non - issue ? | |
| Let 's take this to the list . | |
| PR fixes the well - known URI language . For now there is indication of Accept and Conent - Type header usage but we have n't explicitly called it out until we get a final decision . We can close this issue though ." 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e 8930a05073dd9ef5368bffa0db8cb99e9b240a2e draft-ietf-capport-api 0ff8025b323d7b08cd52afc4bb6d8c39ad37a06a39e9df248c6018b49a801936 ['0ff8025b323d7b08cd52afc4bb6d8c39ad37a06a39e9df248c6018b49a801936'] A "this document defines one "".well-known"" uris using the registration | |
| procedure and template from section 5.1 of rfc5785." | |