@techreport{ietf-dhc-client-options-00,
    number =    {draft-ietf-dhc-client-options-00},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-client-options/00/},
    author =    {Richard Barr Hibbs},
    title =     {{Interpreting Client Options for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
}},
    pagetotal = 24,
    year =      1999,
    month =     oct,
    day =       19,
    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.},
}