Subject: REMINDER: WG last call for "User Class Option for DHCP"

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 06:59:36 -0400

This message is a reminder about the DHC WG last call for "The User Class 
Option for DHCP", <draft-ietf-dhc-userclass-07.txt>.

Please forward any comments you may have on this draft to 
[email-masked] by Friday, May 26.

- Ralph Droms

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:34:12 -0700

> [email-masked] by Friday, May 26.

...the draft can be advanced as it stands, but if any objections are raised
that will delay its advancement, I offer the following suggestion for
clarifying section 4 regarding the 'Len' field:

----- begin suggested text -----

"The format of this option is as follows:

	 Code   Len   Value
	+-----+-----+---------------------  . . .  --+
	| TBD |  N  | User Class Data ('Len' octets) |
	+-----+-----+---------------------  . . .  --+

"where Value consists of zero or more instances of User Class Data.  Each
instance of User Class Data is formatted as follows:

	 u-Len-n  u-Class-Data-n
	+-------+------------------------  . . .  --+
	|  L-n  | Opaque-Data-n ('u-Len-n' octets)  |
	+-------+------------------------  . . .  --+

"and each u-Len-n MUST be non-zero (implying that the minimum length of any
User Class Data instance is 2 octets.

"The Code for this option is TBD.  If any instances of User Class Data are
present, the minimum value of Len is two (one for u-Len-1, and one for
u-Class-Data-1.)"

----- end suggested text -----

My reason for suggesting this change is because the word "MAY" appears in
the third paragraph of section 4, making possible an implementation that
does NOT allow multiple User Classes to appear in the Value field of the
option, but leaves an opening for the initial octet to be misinterpreted as
'Len1' rather than the first octet of an opaque string.

Sorry to be so late with this, but when I reviewed Jerome's edits earlier I
didn't notice this.

--Barr