W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-nottingham-http-portal-00.txt

From: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:15:49 -0400
Message-ID: <4C6BEB15.9010403@gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On 08/05/2010 02:11 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Feedback appreciated. My intent is to engage with folks who are
> using captive portals (have already made some small headway
> there) and register a new status code if a) feedback here and
> there is good and b) they indicate willingness to implement.

It really seems like this ought to be handled by a DHCP option saying
"the IP address I just assigned you won't be usable until you visit the
following URL". (Since, AFAIK normally the DHCP server is part of the
portal as well.)

from the draft:
>    Overall, there may also be an interesting discussion to be had about
>    improving network access methods to the point where a user interface
>    can be presented for the same purposes, without resorting to
>    intercepting HTTP traffic.  However, since such a mechanism would by
>    necessity require modifying the network stack and operating system of
>    the client, this memo takes a more modest approach.

It's true that on desktop platforms the browsers are faster-moving than
the core OS, but I don't think that's true for mobile devices.

And if we're getting the portal makers to make changes now anyway, it
might be more productive to get them to make two changes (an HTTP-only
fix and a whole-network-stack fix) at once. It might take a while before
Windows, eg, got updated to support the whole-network-stack fix, but
when they did, the portals would already be ready for them.

-- Dan
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 14:16:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:24 GMT