IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mif] 答复: RE: a question about rfc6418

zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn Wed, 21 December 2011 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F8221F84F9 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:45:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.993
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.993 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8omdn+1zwqh8 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41DCC21F8513 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 5952878017210; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:44:26 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 95341.1463168568; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:45:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id pBL9jkux096369; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:45:46 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462021AAEF7@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
To: pierrick.seite@orange.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF131F096E.E92B2955-ON4825796D.00358406-4825796D.0035A174@zte.com.cn>
From: zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:45:39 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-12-21 17:45:47, Serialize complete at 2011-12-21 17:45:47
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0035A1724825796D_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn pBL9jkux096369
Cc: mif@ietf.org
Subject: [mif] 答复: RE: a question about rfc6418
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:45:56 -0000

until the user has NOT authenticated?


Regards~~~

-Sujing Zhou

<pierrick.seite@orange.com> 写于 2011-12-21 17:42:34:

> Hi,
> 
> Nothing particular, this sentence reflects what the user is 
> currently experiencing when getting access via a captive portal.
> 
> Pierrick
> 
> De : mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn
> Envoyé : mercredi 21 décembre 2011 10:38
> À : mif@ietf.org
> Objet : [mif] a question about rfc6418
> 
> 
>     in Section 4.4 
> 
>       The network requires a web-based authentication (e.g., the access
>       network is a WiFi hot spot).  In this case, the user can only
>       access a captive portal.  For instance, the network may perform
>       HTTP redirection or modify DNS behavior (Section 4.1) until the
>       user has not authenticated.
> 
>    I am quite confused by the last word. Is it possible a typo or 
> something particular? 
> 
> 
> Regards~~~
> 
> -Sujing Zhou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email