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

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

Tagged VLANs seems ok (and it fits in the diagrams).  

-----Original Message-----
From: Congdon, Paul T (ProCurve) [mailto:paul.congdon@hp.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:45 PM
To: Bernard Aboba; Greg Weber (gdweber)
Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Proposed Resolution to Issue 180: Misuse of Data Types


Yes, I remember the discussion about using ASCII representations of a
flag.

How about "Tagged VLANs" or "Tagged VLANs Flag" for a field name?

To me, "VLAN Flag" is confusing. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:08 PM
> To: Congdon, Paul T (ProCurve); 'Greg Weber (gdweber)'
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: 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 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/>