[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Proposed Resolution to Issue 180: Misuse of Data Types
Here are some thoughts:
1. The values of 0x31 and 0x32 translate to ASCII '1' and '2'. This is
useful for the Egress-VLAN-Name attribute, since this allows the attribute
(defined as type String) to be entered easily. Changing the values to
0x01 and 0x00 would it harder to input the attribute, so I don't think this
change is a good idea.
2. You are right that this variable is not really a Flag, and others have
stated it is not a Tag (at least in the RFC 2868 sense). Given this, I'm
somewhat concerned about calling it a 'VLAN Tag Flag'. What do other people
3. Could we perhaps call it the "Tagging" field?
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
Behalf Of Congdon, Paul T (ProCurve)
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 5:36 PM
To: Greg Weber (gdweber); Bernard Aboba
Subject: RE: Proposed Resolution to Issue 180: Misuse of Data Types
The name "VLAN Flag" is miss leading. There is certainly a VLAN
present. The question is whether the VLAN is tagged or not. I
understand the confusion with Radius tags - though people who understand
VLANs and would be using this attribute probably wouldn't have a
If you must change the field name - which I'm not really in support of -
I suggest calling it "VLAN Tag Flag" and going with the 1 and 0
symantics of TRUE and FALSE.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.