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

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

To: Dave Dolson <[email protected]>, Vincent van Dam <[email protected]>, David Bird <[email protected]>, Erik Kline <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code
From: Julian Reschke <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:34:23 +0200
Archived-at: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/2HvOVmpL6y6OsosZHNrTspcBG9U>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Delivered-to: [email protected]
In-reply-to: <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E987061F965@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com>
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>
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>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0

On 2017-06-23 20:11, Dave Dolson wrote:

It seems 511 is probably better than 30x for non-browserrequests—clearly an error instead of redirecting to something unexpected.
Is 511 likely to be OK for old IoT devices? Probably a better outcomethan 307.
...

FWIW, why is *307* desirable in the first place? Wouldn't it be betterto use 301/302 or even 303?


Best regards, Julian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code
  - From: Dave Dolson <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: [Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code
  - From: Dave Dolson <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code
Next by Date: Re: [Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code
Previous by thread: Re: [Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code
Next by thread: Re: [Captive-portals] practicality of 511 HTTP status code
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread