Re: [dhcwg] Question: in RFC3046 why did Agent Subnet Mask Sub-option die

Simon,

I still have some of the old emails from 1999-2000 discussing the issue. 
there was an argument made during the last-call that the specification 
of that subnet suboption in -08 was insufficient and might lead to 
interoperability problems. there were folks who didn't object to it as 
it was, but Mike Patrick (the author) went ahead and removed that 
suboption in order to address the objection. it sounded as if he was 
planning to submit a separate draft, but I can't find any evidence that 
he ever did. feel free to email me if you'd like me to forward the 
actual emails to you...

Regards,
Mark

Simon Kelley wrote:
> What was the reasoning behind removing the Agent Subnet mask option 
> during the gestation of RFC3046? It was there in
> 
> draft-ietf-dhc-agent-options-08
> 
> and gone in
> 
> draft-ietf-dhc-agent-options-09
> 
> I ask because I have an application where it would be very useful.
> 
> I realise that this is a long time ago, which begs a meta-question, do 
> publically-accessible archives exist for the DHC working group mailing 
> list, stretching back that far? I found
> 
>    http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/index.html
> 
> but that doesn't seem to allow access to historic archives.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Simon.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg