> Similarly, as you say, the host software provider has no incentive to require this > functionality: for the most part, it simply makes life > difficult for the end user. At present, Google is actually pretty good > about this; the result is that it's hard to use Google devices on > networks with broken captive portals, which are of course endemic. > Google seems not to have paid a price for this thus far, but I don't see other > vendors doing what Google is doing. It may well be one of these cases where we should disregard Jon Postel's advice and NOT be tolerant with what we receive. Not being tolerant is a known way to force change. Suppose that a critical fraction of devices refuses to use broken portals, fail, call the help desk, etc. That will certainly create pressure on portal vendors to fix the broken pages. And having the advice in the RFC will provide cover to device vendors. -- Christian Huitema