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

yes, of course. submitting an individual draft and then presenting it to 
the working group would be exactly the right thing to do.

-- Mark

Simon Kelley wrote:
> 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