IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Sun, 07 May 2017 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.com>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C9B12783A for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 May 2017 01:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.802
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n-tDunHwertx for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 May 2017 01:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAE3612785F for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 May 2017 01:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id l135so18237972ywb.2 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 May 2017 01:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YVb7NP4SzZjfxQpU/UtycWNZCNEMA/8PwJk5pYm9Ywo=; b=J238U/wfusFI4d3WClFnaifQmKBJVHCJ54qFujCoCqxSroEPJQ8gz6M7PRIfoG5Dwa fer84C+YsuEq1X9BXO8DB9gLsccmch6jRS2cMrkvDuYJv2g8unH1iUfLV7oqvTCK1iMC RYf33dQB2iBVLtr0zPUdflNa/po+C2BUNknqHjAUYBZvv/jBUqd2mSrtqCxZuE4q+Se1 YPI9VfluS06pZeafaGa4taqopgD1WnLVd/sYNhw8VIncMfH2/J/AdKNFqevVMYBvvUwo hWGWd+3DA+XOG2FAzxjFLM+Si3xnl4M4iQXteiejgWqw/PTWDqAq3eWPRBU35yG2psTo sKtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YVb7NP4SzZjfxQpU/UtycWNZCNEMA/8PwJk5pYm9Ywo=; b=ltGV3qSrXc/gNT2xNjhzB3A5O0k36jTOgMm3pkqlJhY2USQ6hrKt2xC0GRmeRCt2SM XpjHHiNvHdaLQEHCna389Baad24LCqFkdR/hVj7xY6JCycUgHF4nojUmr9A7N7a1lSRO BYgoCoq49zAvvSoRgz45S+SODkHOvMR9hYkgCiRlP6+hCK6F+7CqO6q61ZaBRMwTYzxw Wd4TNZOV+o+wcuWSc7OlFg4HTW97baVNnZhgtzXEpHmq4JRK3RBMY8WCjZSrr6PfEgqv KqjxtccPjnXDGA9X+lhoGueyy8gflFrtAbwE7PKo4YPM2hD9lo6UXm8zQScQEa1VQ0/2 0XkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4PPnqno5NlVbXVGzHqbQTpLXxqS7GTcvbXeLMZOnFGAIOtL20W xAwRhGIHQfzmhC9T328O1kJv3K24Y88r2Z89nA==
X-Received: by 10.13.197.131 with SMTP id h125mr30404034ywd.292.1494144373611; Sun, 07 May 2017 01:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.105.84 with HTTP; Sun, 7 May 2017 01:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 17:05:53 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxrPo+qSBWP23=fpwG0ZzBrdOMgs0gykAxOPSFbojeR79A@mail.gmail.com>
To: captive-portals@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="001a114e594aa7bb1f054eea9873"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/0liIVXFwgdO9i1CAFcLhxxh1LNw>
Subject: [Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <captive-portals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/captive-portals/>
List-Post: <mailto:captive-portals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 08:06:16 -0000

I wanted to poll the group's thoughts on the usefulness of the
rfc6585#section-6 511 HTTP status code.

Has anybody tried to serve 511s to clients, and if so what were the results?

Might it be useful to serve an API endpoint (rather than the full-blown
HTML UI)?

I'm trying to get a sense of whether this will be a useful tool to use in
assembling a recommended portal interaction.  If we determine it's not
really going to be a workable component, then that's useful to know too.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email