Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsawg document: draft-nottingham-http-portal

Mark Nottingham <> Wed, 26 January 2011 02:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A323A68FD for <>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:48:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.582
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.983, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sxoqx-AKpf9V for <>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:48:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4433A6840 for <>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:48:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD88C509D9; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:51:32 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:51:27 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Barry Leiba <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsawg document: draft-nottingham-http-portal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 02:48:43 -0000

I wouldn't be averse to this. 

However, some implementation experience is necessary. In particular, I'd like to run an experiment where the status code is deployed on a captive portal in a large network, to see if it affects current implementations.

The IETF meeting network seems like an ideal place to do so, and I've pinged (last August) about doing so, but haven't had any response.

It also needs adoption by people who use captive portals. To that end, I've had some positive interactions with the Wireless Broadband Alliance <> about the draft, but that discussion tailed off without any conclusive action. I've also had some (brief) discussions with a few Squid developers (Squid is often used to interpose captive portals), and there was interest in supporting the draft, but this also needs following up.


On 26/01/2011, at 1:32 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

> This document has been discussed briefly on the httpbis mailing list,
> but it's not a product of that working group.  The discussions were
> some time ago, and there wasn't a lot; see the following two threads:
> -00 version:
> -01 version:
> The document has sat with no discussion since then, and the appsawg
> chairs and ADs recommend that the working group adopt, review, and
> discuss it.  Please copy discussion to both lists -- this one, and
> also the httpbis list, <>.
> The appsawg chairs will be looking for objections to accepting this as
> a working group document; please make such objections by 4 Feb.  In
> any case, please review the document and comment on it.  This document
> needs broad review and consensus across the applications area.
> Barry, appsawg chair
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list

Mark Nottingham