RE: Proposed Resolution to Issue 180: Misuse of Data Types

["Bernard Aboba" <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com>]

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
think? 

3. Could we perhaps call it the "Tagging" field? 




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Congdon, Paul T (ProCurve)
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 5:36 PM
To: Greg Weber (gdweber); Bernard Aboba
Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
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
problem.

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