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

Mark Stapp wrote:
> 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. 

I wonder, would it be possible to submit a draft now and restart this 
process? (presumably leading ultimately to a new RFC?) Since I have a 
real application for this option, that could help to nail down the 
specification.

Cheers,

Simon.

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