Skip to main content

Captive-Portal Identification Using DHCP or Router Advertisements (RAs)
RFC 7710

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-12-20
16 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'In many environments offering short-term or temporary Internet access (such as coffee shops), it is common …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'In many environments offering short-term or temporary Internet access (such as coffee shops), it is common to start new connections in a captive-portal mode. This highly restricts what the customer can do until the customer has authenticated.

This document describes a DHCP option (and a Router Advertisement (RA) extension) to inform clients that they are behind some sort of captive-portal device and that they will need to authenticate to get Internet access. It is not a full solution to address all of the issues that clients may have with captive portals; it is designed to be used in larger solutions. The method of authenticating to and interacting with the captive portal is out of scope for this document.')
2015-12-07
16 (System) RFC published
2015-12-01
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7710">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2015-11-20
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7710">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2015-11-20
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-10-14
16 (System) Notify list changed from draft-wkumari-dhc-capport.shepherd@ietf.org, olafur@cloudflare.com, ebersman-ietf@dragon.net, draft-wkumari-dhc-capport.ad@ietf.org, draft-wkumari-dhc-capport@ietf.org, ted.lemon@nominum.com, steve.sheng@icann.org, warren@kumari.net to (None)
2015-10-05
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2015-10-01
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2015-10-01
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2015-09-30
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-09-30
16 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-09-30
16 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-09-29
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-09-29
16 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2015-09-29
16 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-09-29
16 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-09-29
16 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2015-09-29
16 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2015-09-24
16 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-09-17
16 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-09-17
16 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2015-09-16
16 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
I find this paragraph a little confusing an think it could be a bit cleaner:
  "Devices and systems that automatically connect to …
[Ballot comment]
I find this paragraph a little confusing an think it could be a bit cleaner:
  "Devices and systems that automatically connect to an open network
  could potentially be tracked using the techniques described in this
  document (forcing the user to continually authenticate, or exposing
  their browser fingerprint).  However, similar tracking can already be
  performed with the standard captive portal mechanisms, so this
  technique does not give the attackers more capabilities."

I think just a variation of the second sentence is enough as this mechanism doesn't introduce any new tracking mechanism.  Just stating that it is possible to track users from a network with a captive portal should be enough.

As a side note, I know this is out of scope, it would be interesting as a user to understand policies of captive portals using this mechanism before selecting which to use.  Maybe some set of registered policies that go in the URI for the future?
2015-09-16
16 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-09-16
16 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-09-16
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-09-16
16 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the BOOTP Vendor Extensions and DHCP Options subregistry of the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/

a new option is to be defined as follows:

Tag: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: Captive-Portal
Data Length:
Meaning: DHCP Captive Portal Option
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> What should the entry for "Data Length" be for this option?

Second, in the Option Codfes subregistry of the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/

a new option code will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: OPTION_CAPTIVE_PORTAL
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate ticket. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Third, in the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats subregistry of the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry locasted at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Captive Portal Option
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
2015-09-16
16 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
There are lots of TBDs in the shepherd write up. Some are fairly important (i.e. the IPR questions)

-- section 2:
Are there …
[Ballot comment]
There are lots of TBDs in the shepherd write up. Some are fairly important (i.e. the IPR questions)

-- section 2:
Are there any rules about the nature of the uri? Scheme? Security?

-- section 4, last paragraph:
Would it make sense to have a stronger statement about TLS for privacy purposes, given that captive portals often ask for passwords? Also, It might be worth elaborating on the "assure users a portal is not malicious" part..

editorial:

-- 4, last paragraph: "By handing out a URI using which is protected with
  TLS, ..."
Looks like an editing error around "using which"
2015-09-16
16 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-09-16
16 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for producing this draft. I hope the mechanism it describes is widely deployed.

It's a small thing, but this draft uses …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for producing this draft. I hope the mechanism it describes is widely deployed.

It's a small thing, but this draft uses "authenticate" in the abstract, and "agree to an acceptable use policy (AUP) and / or provide billing information" in the Introduction, and then talks about "an authentication page" in section 2.

Are all those synonyms, for those skilled in the art? If not, more consistency might be helpful, or perhaps adding a definition of "authenticate" that includes things like agreeing to an AUP.
2015-09-16
16 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-09-15
16 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
Nothing against the draft itself, but a reflection.

I'm sure we all faced this issue: In an airport, with lots of WIFI networks, …
[Ballot comment]
Nothing against the draft itself, but a reflection.

I'm sure we all faced this issue: In an airport, with lots of WIFI networks, we connect to each of them one by one, hoping for a free WIFI for a few minutes to exchange emails, and it takes a long time to "test" every network". I can envision the solution in the draft to be used to provide the list of all WIFI networks along with the associated portal page (after a quick DHCP request for each WIFI), to help me select my network. In this multi providers configuration, what is the incentive for the different captive portals to populate this field. All the providers want to attract customers to their portal, and show how great/cheap their services are. So not populating this field might trick me to believe that there is a direct connection to the Internet and influence my WIFI selection.

Nits:
- RA acronym in the abstract
- AUP acronym
- idnits complaints about the 'RFC2939' missing reference
- remove ">" in "Captive portals are increasingly hijacking TLS connections to force > browsers to talk to the portal." .
2015-09-15
16 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-09-15
16 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

Address literal URIs don't play well with https, do they? And
using https here is desirable as credentials are likely to be
sent. …
[Ballot comment]

Address literal URIs don't play well with https, do they? And
using https here is desirable as credentials are likely to be
sent. And while a 30x to a https URL can be used, that
round-trip could allow for new points of attack, for an
adversary not able to insert a DHCP response. (E.g. if the
evntual https TLS endpoint is far from the WLAN, then the http
URI could be more easily attacked.) Maybe you ought note this
issue?

Or... Why not send the URI and optionally the address? That way
a standard CA could support https, and a client with no DNS
could still be ok. Not sure if the client could benefit from
standard URL de-referencing code though, so this may be a dumb
idea.  OTOH, you're already calling for special sandboxing of
that (usually) web page, so maybe this could work?
2015-09-15
16 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-09-14
16 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-09-14
16 Alissa Cooper [Ballot comment]
Glad we got the document status thing sorted out.
2015-09-14
16 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2015-09-03
16 David Black Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: David Black.
2015-09-03
16 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Black
2015-09-03
16 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Black
2015-09-03
16 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig
2015-09-03
16 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig
2015-09-02
16 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-16.txt> (Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP / RA) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP / RA'
  <draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-16.txt> as Proposed Standard

While the original last call went out correctly with a  a 4 week peroid due
to the standards action required for DHCP registration the last call
erroneously stated that the status for which the draft was aiming was
informational. The intended status is proposed standard. This additional
last call intended to clarify that point runs for two weeks completing
9/17.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-09-17. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  In many environments offering short-term or temporary Internet access
  (such as coffee shops), it is common to start new connections in a
  captive portal mode.  This highly restricts what the customer can do
  until the customer has authenticated.

  This document describes a DHCP option (and a RA extension) to inform
  clients that they are behind some sort of captive portal device, and
  that they will need to authenticate to get Internet Access.  It is
  not a full solution to address all of the issues that clients may
  have with captive portals; it is designed to be used in larger
  solutions.  The method of authenticating to, and interacting with the
  captive portal is out of scope of this document.

  [ Ed note (remove): This document is being developed in github:
  https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dhc-capport . ]




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dhc-capport/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dhc-capport/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2015-09-02
16 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-09-02
16 Joel Jaeggli Telechat date has been changed to 2015-09-17 from 2015-09-03
2015-09-02
16 Joel Jaeggli Last call was requested
2015-09-02
16 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation
2015-09-02
16 Joel Jaeggli Last call announcement was changed
2015-09-02
16 Joel Jaeggli Last call announcement was generated
2015-09-02
16 Joel Jaeggli Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-09-02
16 Joel Jaeggli Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Informational
2015-09-02
16 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for putting this together.

The tracker lists this document's intended status as informational but the document header says it is intended to …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for putting this together.

The tracker lists this document's intended status as informational but the document header says it is intended to be standards track. Which is it?
2015-09-02
16 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-09-02
16 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-09-01
16 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-09-01
16 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-09-01
16 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: David Black.
2015-09-01
16 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Black
2015-09-01
16 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Black
2015-08-31
16 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-16.txt
2015-08-28
15 David Black Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: David Black.
2015-08-28
15 Brian Haberman [Ballot comment]
I think you need to specify somewhere that the URIs are encoded following the rules in RFC 3986.
2015-08-28
15 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-08-27
15 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to David Black
2015-08-27
15 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to David Black
2015-08-24
15 Warren Kumari IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-08-24
15 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-15.txt
2015-08-21
14 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
At least some of the authors should know from earlier conversations that I very much support going ahead with this document.

Just one …
[Ballot comment]
At least some of the authors should know from earlier conversations that I very much support going ahead with this document.

Just one teeny comment:
-- Section 2 --

  In order to avoid having to perform DNS interception, the URI SHOULD
  contain an address literal, but MAY contain a DNS name if the captive
  portal allows the client to perform DNS requests to resolve the name.

In my continuing effort to eradicate 2119-use problem #1: the SHOULD/but-MAY structure is a bad one; "SHOULD" is strong and "MAY" negates it.  It's not really a problem here because your "if" constrains the scope of the "MAY", but I'd prefer it if you'd rephrase it something like this:

NEW
  In order to avoid having to perform DNS interception, the URI SHOULD
  contain an address literal.  If the captive portal allows the client
  to perform DNS requests to resolve the name, it is then acceptable
  for the URI to contain a DNS name.
END

Note that's "I'd prefer it"; if you disagree, that's the last you'll hear of it from me, and there's no need to discuss this point.
2015-08-21
14 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-08-17
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-08-16
14 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2015-08-16
14 Joel Jaeggli Ballot has been issued
2015-08-16
14 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-08-16
14 Joel Jaeggli Created "Approve" ballot
2015-08-16
14 Joel Jaeggli Ballot writeup was changed
2015-08-16
14 Joel Jaeggli Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-09-03
2015-08-13
14 Warren Kumari IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2015-08-13
14 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-14.txt
2015-07-13
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: David Black.
2015-07-08
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Hannes Tschofenig.
2015-07-07
13 David Black Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: David Black.
2015-07-07
13 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-06-25
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2015-06-25
13 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-12. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA has two …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-12. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA has two questions and a couple of notes about the actions requested in this document's IANA Considerations section.

NOTE: There appears to be a typo in the first sentence of the section: "This document defines two DHCP Captive-Portal options, one for IPv6 and one for IPv6."

NOTE: The URLs should be replaced as follows:

OLD:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/bootp-dhcp-parameters.xml

NEW:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters

OLD:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xml

NEW:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters

Should the extension change, the shorter names should still point to the registry. 

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which need to be completed.

First, in the Bootp and DHCP options registry under the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters heading at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters

a new option code is to be registered as follows:

Tag: [ TBD ]
Name: DHCP Captive-Portal
Data Length: ?
Meaning: DHCP Captive-Portal
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

QUESTION: How should we fill in the "Data Length" field?

Second, in the Option Codes registry under the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) heading at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/

a new option code is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: DHCP Captive-Portal
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

This request has been approved by the registry's designated expert.

Third, in the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats registry under the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters heading at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

the authors write, "IANA is also requested to assign an IPv6 RA Option Type code (TBA3) from the 'IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats' registry."

QUESTION: Would this registration be correct? The entry for the "description" field isn't clear.

Type: [ TBD ]
Description: IPv6 RA Option Type
Reference: [ RFC-to-be]

IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.
2015-06-18
13 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-13.txt
2015-06-12
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Black
2015-06-12
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Black
2015-06-12
12 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn'
2015-06-11
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2015-06-11
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2015-06-11
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Black
2015-06-11
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Black
2015-06-10
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig
2015-06-10
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig
2015-06-09
12 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-06-09
12 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-12.txt> (Captive-Portal identification in DHCP / RA) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Captive-Portal identification in DHCP / RA'
  <draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-12.txt> as Informational RFC

-
The document got extensive review in DHC  OPSAWG and
elsewhere prior to the decision to AD-sponsor the draft.
An informal BOF was held and a mailing list subsequently created to
continue to explore the problem space more generally

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
-

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-07-07. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  In many environments offering short-term or temporary Internet access
  (such as coffee shops), it is common to start new connections in a
  captive portal mode.  This highly restricts what the customer can do
  until the customer has authenticated.

  This document describes a DHCP option (and a RA extension) to inform
  clients that they are behind some sort of captive portal device, and
  that they will need to authenticate to get Internet Access.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dhc-capport/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dhc-capport/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2015-06-09
12 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-06-09
12 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2015-06-08
12 Joel Jaeggli Last call was requested
2015-06-08
12 Joel Jaeggli Ballot approval text was generated
2015-06-08
12 Joel Jaeggli Ballot writeup was generated
2015-06-08
12 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2015-06-08
12 Joel Jaeggli Last call announcement was changed
2015-06-08
12 Joel Jaeggli Last call announcement was generated
2015-04-19
12 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-03-25
12 Ted Lemon
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard.  This document extends DHCP and Neighbor
Discovery by adding new configuration-information-carrying options,
and contains an applicability statement.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document describes a DHCP option and an RA extension to inform
  nodes that they are behind some sort of captive portal device, and
  that they will need to authenticate to get Internet Access.

Working Group Summary

  This document was reviewed by the DHC working group, but was not adopted
  there because the work is not in charter.  Because it defines new DHCP options,
  it's not really in charter for 6man either.

Document Quality

  Dan Lüdtke has done an implementation of the router side of the RA option.
  We are aware of no RA listener implementations nor DHCP client
  implementations.  Because this document defines DHCP options,
  any generally-configurable DHCP server or client can
  readily be configured to support this new option, typically without recompilation.
  The option question for this document is whether captive portal manufacturers
  and, more importantly, DHCP client implementors and RA listener implementors
  will see the extension as valuable and make use of it.

  The reason for advancing it at this stage rather than waiting for widespread
  adoption is that until a standard format is defined, the extension serves no
  useful purpose and cannot be deployed.  By documenting this extension,
  we hope to provide an opportunity for improvement in the way captive
  portals are operated.

Personnel

Ted Lemon is the document shepherd.
Joel Jaeggli is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I have read this document and suggested changes to the author, who has addressed the concerns I raised.  I believe the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

--tbd--

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

The DHC working group has reviewed the document, and I've also reviewed it for correctness.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

I think there is a potential need for this document.  It's possible that no client implementors will adopt it, but I think it's worth the risk, since without this document, we can be certain that no mechanism of this sort will ever be adopted.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

--tbd--

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

--tbd--

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

There seems to be some concurrence that this proposal is worth trying.  I would not describe the support for it as broad, but I don't think it needs to be, since at worst the document is harmless, and at best it's potentially useful.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

The worst negative comment was along the lines of "isn't this solved by 802.11u?"  The person who made the comment has not expressed any intention to stand in the way of advancing the document, nor even an indication that he personally is against advancing it.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

--tbd--

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

--tbd--

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

--tbd--

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

--tbd--

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward reference.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the interested community considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document creates no new registries.  --tbd-- modulo edits --tbd-- The IANA registry section appears to be correct.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

There are no such checks required for this document.
2015-03-25
12 Ted Lemon
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard.  This document extends DHCP and Neighbor Discovery by adding new configuration-information-carrying options, and contains an applicability statement.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document describes a DHCP option and an RA extension to inform
  nodes that they are behind some sort of captive portal device, and
  that they will need to authenticate to get Internet Access.

Working Group Summary

  This document was reviewed by the DHC working group, but was not adopted
  there because the work is not in charter.  Because it defines new DHCP options,
  it's not really in charter for 6man either.

Document Quality

  Dan Lüdtke has done an implementation of the router side of the RA option.
  We are aware of no RA listener implementations nor DHCP client
  implementations.  Because this document defines DHCP options,
  any generally-configurable DHCP server or client can
  readily be configured to support this new option, typically without recompilation.
  The option question for this document is whether captive portal manufacturers
  and, more importantly, DHCP client implementors and RA listener implementors
  will see the extension as valuable and make use of it.

  The reason for advancing it at this stage rather than waiting for widespread
  adoption is that until a standard format is defined, the extension serves no
  useful purpose and cannot be deployed.  By documenting this extension,
  we hope to provide an opportunity for improvement in the way captive
  portals are operated.

Personnel

Ted Lemon is the document shepherd.
Joel Jaeggli is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I have read this document and suggested changes to the author, who has addressed the concerns I raised.  I believe the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

--tbd--

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

The DHC working group has reviewed the document, and I've also reviewed it for correctness.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

I think there is a potential need for this document.  It's possible that no client implementors will adopt it, but I think it's worth the risk, since without this document, we can be certain that no mechanism of this sort will ever be adopted.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

--tbd--

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

--tbd--

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

There seems to be some concurrence that this proposal is worth trying.  I would not describe the support for it as broad, but I don't think it needs to be, since at worst the document is harmless, and at best it's potentially useful.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

The worst negative comment was along the lines of "isn't this solved by 802.11u?"  The person who made the comment has not expressed any intention to stand in the way of advancing the document, nor even an indication that he personally is against advancing it.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

--tbd--

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

--tbd--

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

--tbd--

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

--tbd--

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward reference.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the interested community considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document creates no new registries.  --tbd-- modulo edits --tbd-- The IANA registry section appears to be correct.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

There are no such checks required for this document.
2015-03-04
12 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-12.txt
2015-03-04
11 Ted Lemon
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard.  This document extends DHCP and Neighbor Discovery by adding new configuration-information-carrying options, and contains an applicability statement.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document describes a DHCP option and an RA extension to inform
  nodes that they are behind some sort of captive portal device, and
  that they will need to authenticate to get Internet Access.

Working Group Summary

  This document was reviewed by the DHC working group, but was not adopted
  there because the work is not in charter.  Because it defines new DHCP options,
  it's not really in charter for 6man either.

Document Quality

  There are no existing implementations.  However, because this document
  defines DHCP options, any generally-configurable DHCP server or client can
  readily be configured to support this new option, typically without recompilation.
  The option question for this document is whether captive portal manufacturers
  and, more importantly, DHCP client implementors and RA listener implementors
  will see the extension as valuable and make use of it.

  The reason for advancing it at this stage rather than waiting for widespread
  adoption is that until a standard format is defined, the extension serves no
  useful purpose and cannot be deployed.  By documenting this extension,
  we hope to provide an opportunity for improvement in the way captive
  portals are operated.

Personnel

Ted Lemon is the document shepherd.
Joel Jaeggli is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I have read this document and suggested changes to the author, who has addressed the concerns I raised.  I believe the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

--tbd--

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

The DHC working group has reviewed the document, and I've also reviewed it for correctness.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

I think there is a potential need for this document.  It's possible that no client implementors will adopt it, but I think it's worth the risk, since without this document, we can be certain that no mechanism of this sort will ever be adopted.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

--tbd--

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

--tbd--

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

There seems to be some concurrence that this proposal is worth trying.  I would not describe the support for it as broad, but I don't think it needs to be, since at worst the document is harmless, and at best it's potentially useful.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

The worst negative comment was along the lines of "isn't this solved by 802.11u?"  The person who made the comment has not expressed any intention to stand in the way of advancing the document, nor even an indication that he personally is against advancing it.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

--tbd--

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

--tbd--

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

--tbd--

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

--tbd--

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward reference.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the interested community considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document creates no new registries.  --tbd-- modulo edits --tbd-- The IANA registry section appears to be correct.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

There are no such checks required for this document.
2015-02-16
11 Joel Jaeggli IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-02-16
11 Joel Jaeggli Shepherding AD changed to Joel Jaeggli
2015-02-16
11 Joel Jaeggli Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2015-02-16
11 Joel Jaeggli Notification list changed to "Ted Lemon" <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
2015-02-16
11 Joel Jaeggli Document shepherd changed to Ted Lemon
2015-02-16
11 Joel Jaeggli IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2015-02-16
11 Joel Jaeggli Stream changed to IETF from None
2015-01-30
11 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-11.txt
2015-01-28
10 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-10.txt
2015-01-27
09 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-09.txt
2015-01-27
08 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-08.txt
2014-12-22
07 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-07.txt
2014-12-02
06 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-06.txt
2014-09-08
05 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-05.txt
2014-07-04
04 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-04.txt
2014-06-02
03 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-03.txt
2014-04-16
02 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-02.txt
2014-01-23
01 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-01.txt
2014-01-13
00 Warren Kumari New version available: draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-00.txt