RE: [dhcwg] Interpretation of Option 60 (Vendor Class ID)

Steve, I agree with you that there is no implication on the
character set to be used. But the term 'string' implies for
me that it `could' be zero terminated, i.e. that it's ok
to treat zero as a termination character in that case.

If this is not the case, 'string' should be changed to
'array' imho.

	-Patrick

--
Patrick Guelat, ImproWare AG Network Services, CH-4133 Pratteln
Mail: patg@imp.ch - Phone: +41 61 826 93 00 (ext: 13)

On Tue, 7 May 2002, Steve Gonczi wrote:

> Interpretation of Option 60 (Vendor Class ID)IMHO it is meant to be an array
> of  unsigned bytes.
>
> The authors would have spelled out any formatting restrictions, such as a
> specific
> character set, or required zero termination if they had  that in mind.
>
> You will see that they did so in other cases.  ( e.g.: section 9.9).
>
> Because the authors did not restrict the allowed octet values in any way, we
> can not safely
> use a zero termination convention. ( embedded zeros are allowed by the
> definition)
>
> /sG
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Cosmo, Patrick
>   Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 9:41 AM
>   To: dhcwg@ietf.org
>   Subject: [dhcwg] Interpretation of Option 60 (Vendor Class ID)
>
>    RFC 2132 states that option 60 "is a string of n octets". We are having a
> little debate about how to interpret this and would like to know how others,
> and the working group, interpret this option.
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg