@techreport{dittert-host-sys-char-03,
    number =    {draft-dittert-host-sys-char-03},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dittert-host-sys-char/03/},
    author =    {Mike Henry},
    title =     {{DHCP Options For Host System Characteristics}},
    pagetotal = 5,
    year =      1999,
    month =     feb,
    day =       23,
    abstract =  {The interoperability of configuration services based on the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) {[}1{]} in an environment of heterogeneous clients depends on clients accurately identifying themselves and their relevant characteristics to configuration servers. The class identifier provided through DHCP option 60 {[}2{]} helps in this regard, but such identifiers essentially only enable clients and servers that are 'good friends' to find each other. This draft proposes the definition of three options that convey particular, generally useful information about the client system. This enables all servers to recognize this information, and is a step toward a richer form of interoperability for configuration services. The options in question are Option 93 - Client System Architecture Option 94 - Client Network Device Interface Option 97 - UUID/GUID-based Client Identifier Subsequent to IANA issuing the above DHCP option numbers, the DHCP Working Group has determined that use of these options is not appropriate. As a result, it was agreed in the August 1998 IETF DHCP WG meeting that use of Options 93, 94, and 97 as described in this draft would be allowed until August of 2004 (six years), after which time the option numbers would be made available for new options. In the interim, it is expected that systems using Options 93, 94, and 97 will be redefined to use Options 60 and 61. It is allowable that systems may use both methods during the 6 year interim period as a means of migrating to exclusive use of Options 60 and 61 for this functionality by the end of the interim period. The DHCP Working Group has agreed that this draft will be published as an Informational RFC to document the expected term of use for Options 93, 94, and 97 as defined in this ID.},
}