IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Steve Gonczi" <steve@relicore.com> Tue, 07 May 2002 16:03 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13900 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2002 12:03:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA08366 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 May 2002 12:03:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06613; Tue, 7 May 2002 11:58:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06582 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2002 11:58:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from c015.snv.cp.net (h012.c015.snv.cp.net [209.228.35.127]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA13742 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2002 11:58:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (cpmta 28976 invoked from network); 7 May 2002 08:58:18 -0700
Received: from 4.36.57.222 (HELO STEVEPC) by smtp.relicore.com (209.228.35.127) with SMTP; 7 May 2002 08:58:18 -0700
X-Sent: 7 May 2002 15:58:18 GMT
From: Steve Gonczi <steve@relicore.com>
To: "Cosmo, Patrick" <Patrick@incognito.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Interpretation of Option 60 (Vendor Class ID)
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 11:53:52 -0400
Message-ID: <BFELJLKGHEJOPOPGJBKKMEIDCBAA.steve@relicore.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C1F5BD.DB727520"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <4FB49E60CFBA724E88867317DAA3D198692A12@homer.incognito.com.>
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

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.

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status