From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Handle HTTP error 511 Network Authentication Required (standard secure proxy authentification/captive portal detection) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:30:06 -0500 Message-ID: <20120220193006.GA30904@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <4b8f33ba4c870528a82ab85d6dad68bd.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <20120220010617.GB4140@sigill.intra.peff.net> <9cd657a3c4960a8c496515a03bbf623e.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <20120220135639.GA5131@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120220154452.GA27456@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120220191500.GA29228@sigill.intra.peff.net> <72fbd4155349723da1c3c503c1c9c620.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Mailhot X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 20 20:30:18 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RzYwD-0003xH-I9 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:30:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752909Ab2BTTaK (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:30:10 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:44075 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752121Ab2BTTaJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:30:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 5670 invoked by uid 107); 20 Feb 2012 19:30:09 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:30:09 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:30:06 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <72fbd4155349723da1c3c503c1c9c620.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 08:24:15PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > I think a good first step would be improving the error message for a > > 511, then. Unfortunately, it seems from the rfc draft you sent that > > callers are expected to parse the link out of the HTML given in the body > > of the response. It seems silly that there is not a Location field > > associated with a 511, similar to redirects. > > The URL is not lost in the HTML text, it's in the url meta field > > content="0; url=https://login.example.net/"> Sorry, but 1. That is in the HTML in the body of the response (by body I don't mean the HTML , but the body of the http request). 2. I don't see anything in the rfc indicating that there must be a meta tag in the response. They use it in the example of the rfc, but they also have human-readable text with an link. Do we yet know what will be common among captive portals? You said you have a non-hypothetical case. Can you show us the response? > As for while there is no Location field, I think it's because otherwise it > could behave like a redirect, and browser people made it plain they didn't > want redirects of https accesses (but I wasn't there when the spec was > written, and only skimmed the workgroup archives, so there may have been other > reasons for this choice. I'm pretty sure it's deliberate anyway). Even if they didn't call it Location, it would be nice to have some machine-readable format that is understood by non-browser agents that don't know how to parse HTML. But I recognize that is not your decision, so don't feel obligated to defend it. -Peff