4 ms·
An RFC is not always a standard - often they are simply 'informational'. For us, when we wrote the document, it was a way to document as transparently as possib
by jlivingood 9y ago
An RFC is not always a standard - often they are simply 'informational'. For us, when we wrote the document, it was a way to document as transparently as possible how the system worked so that folks would not need to speculate about it and for us to explain the rationale and alternatives considered. This seemed to me at the time far better than being evasive about it. And a request for comment is often a way to solicit exactly that - good comments (e.g. suggestions on alternatives). In this case, it has led in part to things like the IETF's new(ish) CAPPORT working group being created to develop a better Internet-wide standard for how to interact with so-called captive portals. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/capport/about/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/capport/about/ for more details and feel free to join the mailing list and contribute!
- revelation 9y agoIn contrast to DPI, this document describes a system that does not rely upon DPI You decided to document your ignorance through an RFC? You can't be serious.
- sctb 9y agoWe've already asked you not to post snark or unsubstantive dismissals. We ban accounts that refuse to follow the guidelines, so could you please improve? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html