RE: New Technical Issues RE: WG last call in progress on VLAN/Priority Draft

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Glen Zorn writes....

> For this to be wrong, there must be a non-infinite representation of
any
> integer.  However, no such representation exists; the proof is left as
a
> (trivial) exercise for the reader.

The fact that computer representations of integers cannot take on
infinite, does not invalidate the point I was attempting to make.  BTW,
there has been work on indefinite precision arithmetic, which permits
extensible range integers, but not infinite ones.

> Indeed, there is as much as you want; the questions are, how useful is
it
> to go down that road & (if it is at all useful), how far do we want to
go?

That, indeed, is the crux of the debate.

> With all due respect, I think that you are the one doing the
overloading:
> RFC 2568 says
> 
> 	integer   32 bit unsigned value, most significant octet first.
> 
> That's it.  No range, no interpretation, nothing else.

I beg to differ.  The way I interpret this RADIUS data type is as
follows:

(1) Its an integer.
(2) The range is defined as 0 .. 2**32-1.
(3) Its unsigned.
(4) Its big-endian.

I see nothing that indicates this data type is anything other than an
integer, typically expressed in a C language declaration as "unsigned
long".


--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>