Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 14 November 2011 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C9C1F0CB8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:12:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66RhRdeEXqAA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515171F0C8E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.10.1.235] (unknown [12.14.58.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BFDD509DB; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:12:16 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <p06240627cae62cecfbf0@[172.21.1.9]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:12:13 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <C28A7D4D-607A-4969-9B6A-4CFCDDE0E845@mnot.net>
References: <20111018234005.22724.87290.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FEB7C839-4210-4CC9-BD1F-8A9C53790BD4@mnot.net> <p06240627cae62cecfbf0@[172.21.1.9]>
To: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@me.com>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 03:12:24 -0000

Seems sensible; I'll try to come up with something.

Cheers,


On 13/11/2011, at 8:33 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:

> In today's APPAREA/APPSWG session, Mark briefly talked about this 
> draft, and when mentioning the 511 code, said that his intent was not 
> to encourage captive portal interception as a technique for network 
> access authorization or authentication, but rather to reduce the harm 
> that such mechanisms cause.
> 
> I agree with all these goals, but in looking at 
> draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03.txt, I wonder if it would be 
> helpful to add some text in section 6 that mentions some of the ill 
> effects of the method, and mentions or points to a few better 
> alternative mechanisms for authorizing network access.
> 
> -- 
> Randall Gellens
> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
> -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
> Hofstadter's Law:
>   It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take
>   Hofstadter's Law into account.

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/