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."