IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com> Fri, 23 June 2017 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ddolson@sandvine.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 760E3128BB7 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 0WusGnH6K3Iq for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFDB7126BF7 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WTL-EXCHP-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::ac6b:cc1e:f2ff:93aa]) by WTL-EXCHP-3.sandvine.com ([fe80::3c39:d305:d721:f00a%15]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:53:33 -0400
From: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Vincent van Dam <VvanDam@sandvine.com>, David Bird <dbird@google.com>, Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
CC: "captive-portals@ietf.org" <captive-portals@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code
Thread-Index: AQHSxwjSIR4ujCHIEk2JPkRI6Cld3aHpdqUAgAAJPICASYFSsIAAUnSA//++cpA=
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:53:33 +0000
Message-ID: <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E987061FA7F@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com>
References: <CAAedzxrPo+qSBWP23=fpwG0ZzBrdOMgs0gykAxOPSFbojeR79A@mail.gmail.com> <CADo9JyVrO6fcOtYXc=VtrfmhFsYdHY=3t4nM2xLG3CBnzizWJQ@mail.gmail.com> <D2A19ABBC0147C40BFBB83D1CF3E95F03FEB4A22@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E987061F965@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <6c04ed2c-9d26-eb9d-b4e3-5205845d0fa4@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <6c04ed2c-9d26-eb9d-b4e3-5205845d0fa4@gmx.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.200.114]
x-c2processedorg: b2f06e69-072f-40ee-90c5-80a34e700794
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/g3n9z16ZpTFRheRLcIxaP_swPqQ>
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: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:53:36 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email