[Captive-portals] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8910 (6620)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 23 June 2021 13:49 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 A02913A38AA for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 17WBL6Y9louG for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 027963A38A8 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 753AAF40772; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
To: warren@kumari.net, ek@loon.com, superuser@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, ek.ietf@gmail.com, mt@lowentropy.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rfcerrata8910@vittgam.net, captive-portals@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210623134917.753AAF40772@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:49:17 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/JjbtL37qNkCPuaipm6wL-76NnDk>
Subject: [Captive-portals] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8910 (6620)
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 13:49:29 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8910, "Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP and Router Advertisements (RAs)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6620 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Vittorio Gambaletta (VittGam) <rfcerrata8910@vittgam.net> Section: 2 Original Text ------------- A captive portal MAY do content negotiation (Section 3.4 of [RFC7231]) and attempt to redirect clients querying without an explicit indication of support for the captive portal API content type (i.e., without application/capport+json listed explicitly anywhere within an Accept header field as described in Section 5.3 of [RFC7231]). In so doing, the captive portal SHOULD redirect the client to the value associated with the "user-portal-url" API key. When performing such content negotiation (Section 3.4 of [RFC7231]), implementors of captive portals need to keep in mind that such responses might be cached, and therefore SHOULD include an appropriate Vary header field (Section 7.1.4 of [RFC7231]) or set the Cache-Control header field in any responses to "private" or a more restrictive value such as "no-store" (Section 5.2.2.3 of [RFC7234]). Corrected Text -------------- A captive portal MAY do content negotiation (Section 3.4 of [RFC7231]) and attempt to redirect clients querying without an explicit indication of support for the captive portal API content type (i.e., without application/captive+json listed explicitly anywhere within an Accept header field as described in Section 5.3 of [RFC7231]). In so doing, the captive portal SHOULD redirect the client to the value associated with the "user-portal-url" API key. When performing such content negotiation (Section 3.4 of [RFC7231]), implementors of captive portals need to keep in mind that such responses might be cached, and therefore SHOULD include an appropriate Vary header field (Section 7.1.4 of [RFC7231]) or set the Cache-Control header field in any responses to "private" or a more restrictive value such as "no-store" (Section 5.2.2.3 of [RFC7234]). Notes ----- In RFC8908 the relevant Content-Type is defined as "application/captive+json" and not "application/capport+json". Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8910 (draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-10) -------------------------------------- Title : Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP and Router Advertisements (RAs) Publication Date : September 2020 Author(s) : W. Kumari, E. Kline Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Captive Portal Interaction Area : Applications and Real-Time Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Captive-portals] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC… RFC Errata System
- Re: [Captive-portals] [Technical Errata Reported]… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Captive-portals] [Technical Errata Reported]… Tommy Pauly