IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 08 May 2017 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 EB79112025C for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 May 2017 20:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.703
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 aML7r55qF0gO for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 May 2017 20:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EDC1126CD6 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 May 2017 20:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.18] (unknown [124.189.96.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 612A022E1FA; Sun, 7 May 2017 23:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxrPo+qSBWP23=fpwG0ZzBrdOMgs0gykAxOPSFbojeR79A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 13:27:23 +1000
Cc: captive-portals@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9162DD24-78D4-4037-8E46-6CE2119F347A@mnot.net>
References: <CAAedzxrPo+qSBWP23=fpwG0ZzBrdOMgs0gykAxOPSFbojeR79A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/39Zonxdpg_GvH1aHTSOeP-3Dwlk>
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 08 May 2017 03:27:48 -0000

511 was defined with a fair dash of hope -- that someone would pick it up and run with it. 

It isn't complete; client behaviours need to be defined, probably through new media type(s) and/or HTTP response headers.

The nice thing about it is that its semantics are unambiguous; it's clear that you've got a response from the intervening network, NOT the endpoint you intended. That's helpful, especially for non-browser clients.

Cheers,


> On 7 May 2017, at 6:05 pm, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email