IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00

David Bird <dbird@google.com> Mon, 07 March 2016 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dbird@google.com>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596851CD622 for <captive-portals@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:23:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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: ietfc.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.41]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jCgSamnEstmg for <captive-portals@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22d.google.com (mail-vk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02C661CD61E for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id k1so108374701vkb.0 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 09:23:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=rB1oUUy47fljMHlvWzBQqftjuV18hVLKDGEEgHDbbM0=; b=jCXuDNrwbu5AupP9HaBfeWpvhEgnfK9CZ5w5RP8IBNY0EphVdhbPQDLyZmjYCFH5Ul oV2JDLvUFIFUZkxhQY79JJ69Stmho155sI8h83guW4w3tuE053fNe3FK1v7yg1fCpvEl tJDffokluwdr8iJREPTsaPmdK9OER1nH0j63VceZT75pqrUzD+n8Z+EUFmGEzdGF3oul 4vw2hYB74Hw63a1QE9G5hXQfsDt899zGFdYQPJlzBnlro57TZqe4n3ISDLHk8fOEzgOO sH0s7KFDYPSXeCqrg9gGHTSePf7JvS3kRbT+E3epTxDHFmiz2JJhXNDXBhtNCE+9ZOY1 lwTA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=rB1oUUy47fljMHlvWzBQqftjuV18hVLKDGEEgHDbbM0=; b=KHvp6GAcDfdD2NQiGEFzdTHTyLJaCeqJKv8NnhjISYAlLAbc5RwTK/zaxbUO8fJEdv o2oRHfgvgaInqYSed/x3oOSfUjscOunK/8SFB2FPNositdvNsCrefKznhIWcXcuFSfj7 7qW61V05lU8+iaK3l0M8BYRsVJW8/2NEsr1U+j5lcvYsSaz694yurHuMniAEyeS/iv8C NJflqAPCsEem9E6cChocFmU4CM0JM+n87gwWTRGcKNIxa4yjqtouVkAXdaBaNBDG+MN7 VqQqIJIuo+maAF/cY31XOY2vx92Cx1GjRfir0iM3tYwGKlM/ERW3rNWNGG25beLrySlE JtkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJkeWcxPkYUlzhnKgttY1Fd858Fk2lsdJ845cP7KZwCQWrHuRrt/P/GI+foGe2Zn96I7LPVB8/gitjJc0Fv
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.180.215 with SMTP id d206mr20931643vkf.125.1457370032338; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 09:00:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.159.37.42 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:00:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20160307155423.1590733519F0@fafnir.remote.dragon.net>
References: <D2FCEB47.12A6DC%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <CABkgnnV-Nbbt3Mkh-ZOzWig7rJX32SFugkWLnx-t94bA-B__Lw@mail.gmail.com> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830EBCAE6@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com> <D3030A8C.12AEFF%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> <20160307155423.1590733519F0@fafnir.remote.dragon.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 09:00:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CADo9JyUZ7zored10YUocwzuNchQ6JB6664QiXpX23KbPrWX2HQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Bird <dbird@google.com>
To: Paul Ebersman <list-captive-portals@dragon.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143f35615e16b052d786743"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/ZtswP0v7LxivggzCoKKyZp9jHcY>
Cc: "captive-portals@ietf.org" <captive-portals@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 07 Mar 2016 17:23:08 -0000

+1 for an ICMP solution ...
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-capport-icmp-unreach-00

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Paul Ebersman <
list-captive-portals@dragon.net> wrote:

>
> ddolson> Regarding non-browser clients, even non-HTTP clients, and
> ddolson> considering this is the IETF, it seems reasonable to find an
> ddolson> IP-layer solution vs. an HTTP-layer solution.
>
> Indeed... All sorts of phone apps don't use HTTP but need to tickle the
> reaction.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email