|
(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:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 2:34 PM To: Dave Dolson; Vincent van Dam; David Bird; Erik Kline Cc: [email protected] 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
-- ------------------------------------------------------- Mariko Kobayashi([email protected]) Keio Univ. SFC M1 Jun Murai Lab./WIDE/ao(あお) --------------------------- |