Subject: [dhcwg] Document Action: 'Description of Cisco Systems' Subnet Allocation Option for DHCPv4' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-13.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 12:30:00 -0700

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Description of Cisco Systems' Subnet Allocation Option for DHCPv4'
  (draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-13.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Brian Haberman.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc/

Technical Summary

  This document defines a new DHCP option which is passed between the
  DHCP Client and the DHCP Server to request dynamic allocation of a
  subnet, give specifications of subnet(s) allocated, and report usage
  statistics.  This memo documents the current usage of the option in
  agreement with [RFC3942], which declares that any pre-existing usages
  of option numbers in the range 128 - 223 should be documented and the
  working group will try to officially assign those numbers to those
  options.

Working Group Summary

   There was nothing controversial about this document.  There was
   consensus in the working group to include the following text in the
   document:

   At the time when RFC 3942 came out, Cisco Systems had already
   deployed products which made use of option number 220.  In RFC 3942,
   section 4, procedure 2, it is clearly stated, "Vendors that currently
   use one or more of the reclassified options have 6 months following
   this RFC's publication date to notify the DHC WG and IANA that they
   are using particular options numbers and agree to document that usage
   in an RFC."  This procedure was immediately followed.  It further
   states, "Vendors have 18 months from this RFC's publication date to
   start the documentation process by submitting an Internet-Draft."
   This procedure was also followed.  For the purposes of clarity, it
   was thought important for the submitted draft to go through Working
   Group review.  This process took quite a long time, with the document
   moving to "Last Call" multiple times.  Since Cisco Systems already
   had deployed products, and thus wanted to avoid anything except for
   minor changes to the existing option definition, it was deemed best
   for the document to be Informational instead of Standard Track.  This
   decision was made in cooperation with the Working Group and Work
   Group Chair at the time.

Document Quality

   There is at least one existing implementation of this specification.  It is not
   known if additional DHCP server implementations have or will implement this
   draft.  Existing implementations are believed to be available today.

   Beyond what was performed with key members of the dhc WG no special
   reviews were performed or required.

Personnel

   The document shepherd is John Brzozowski
   <[email-masked]>.  The responsible
  Area Director is Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>.