Re: [Captive-portals] Use Case: "Carrier Grade Captive Portal"

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

>
> (the 511 error page does not seem to be the worst variant.. if the user
> sees an error in the browser
> then the next reload puts him to the correct walled garden page)
>

Some observations, and questions for the working group.

I'm not sure we have enough input on whether 511 is useful or not.  There
seemed to be some suggestion it would help, and some that it wouldn't.
Perhaps one question we could ask is whether it's harmful?  And if we agree
it's not harmful, is it worth developing some recommendations for its use?

As for the ICMP unreachable option, I certainly don't think it would be
harmful (with the extra URL bits removed for now).  Is that something we
wish to progress?

Given that we're probably looking at a portal detection method based on
entirely new work, it seems to me we're free to look at new things like
utilizing the PVD detection scheme (DNS queries for "provisioning domain
names", followed by other interaction still TBD).  Have the portal
implementors reviewed this and given consideration as to whether its
useful?  (I think of the discovery of the portal and subsequent interaction
with it as 2 separate processes conducted, obviously, in serial.)

Thoughts?