Interpreting Client Options for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (dhc WG)
Author Richard Hibbs 
Last updated 1999-10-19
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized (tools) 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)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at


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.


Richard Hibbs (

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)