Interpreting Client Options for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
draft-ietf-dhc-client-options-00
| Document | Type | Expired Internet-Draft (dhc WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last updated | 1999-10-19 | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats |
Expired & archived
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dhc-client-options-00.txt
Abstract
During the summer of 1999, a grand debate raged over the correct interpretation of several DHCP client options as described in [RFC 2132], as well as the need for one option whose proposing Internet-Draft expired. As a result of that debate, the authors gained some insights into the intended (or unintended!) interpretation of certain options defined in [RFC 2132,] particularly the Vendor Class Identifier (option 60) and Vendor Encapsulated Options (option 43.) These insights are presented in this informational Internet-Draft, whose reason for being is to act as an aid to implementers of the DHC protocol, and to future editors of the underlying RFCs and selected, current Internet-Drafts. This memo is not being proposed as a standards-track document, but rather as an aid to clarify existing and future RFCs.
Authors
Richard Hibbs (rbhibbs@pacbell.com)
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)