[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



(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)
---------------------------