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

(This is just information)
I haven't seen Captive Portal which responses 307, and most of them 
reply 302 or 200.
I only saw Meraki's one replies 307.

Although I cannot guess how it can be implemented on the current Wi-Fi 
services,
511 will be helpful for such devices because we do not have a clear 
method to check the existence of Captive Portal.

- Mariko
On 2017/06/24 3:53, Dave Dolson wrote:
> Probably all of those codes are used, as well as 200 (with content).
> We could debate which is best, but that's a distraction, since we want portals to stop pretending to be the real end-point.
> (FWIW, I think 301 is a bad idea, since later requests should try the real URI again.)
>
> My hypothesis is that 511 is an acceptable thing to send an old (pre-RFC6585) device, when there is no expectation of causing user interaction.
>
> -Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 2:34 PM
> To: Dave Dolson; Vincent van Dam; David Bird; Erik Kline
> Cc: captive-portals@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code
>
> On 2017-06-23 20:11, Dave Dolson wrote:
>> It seems 511 is probably better than 30x for non-browser
>> requests-clearly an error instead of redirecting to something unexpected.
>>
>> Is 511 likely to be OK for old IoT devices? Probably a better outcome
>> than 307.
>> ...
> FWIW, why is *307* desirable in the first place? Wouldn't it be better to use 301/302 or even 303?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
　Mariko Kobayashi(ao@sfc.wide.ad.jp)
　Keio Univ. SFC M1
     Jun Murai Lab./WIDE/ao(あお)
---------------------------