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

• To: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00
• From: "John Levine" <[email protected]>
• Date: 8 Mar 2016 12:49:37 -0000
• Archived-at: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/cGUQOthQ5lxKz6pIHX9xkN1PJfk>
• Cc: [email protected]
• Delivered-to: [email protected]
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• List-archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/captive-portals/>
• List-help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
• List-id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <captive-portals.ietf.org>
• List-post: <mailto:[email protected]>
• List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
• List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/captive-portals>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
• Organization:

>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.

Even worse, they do use HTTP but expect an answer from their own server
and strange things happen when they get the portal's page instead.

R's,
John

• References:
  • Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00
    • From: Paul Ebersman <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Captive-portals] Thoughts/comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-01
• Next by Date: Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00
• Previous by thread: Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00
• Next by thread: Re: [Captive-portals] Comments on draft-nottingham-capport-problem-00
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread