Subject: Re: WG Last Call for "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option" I-D

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:08:25 -0500

Ted and I have been discussing issues regarding this draft. I believe I
understand Ted's objections though I don't feel they are as severe as he
does.

I do agree with Ted that the best course of action, in the interest of
time and progress, that the draft be revised to remove the subnet mask
suboption until it can be further refined and reviewed. Some description
at least of the issues and potential security and other risks is
warranted.

And, someone else finally chimed in (thanks Barr), and feels that this
is also the prudent course of action.

---

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 09:37:10 -0500

I was away from the office yesterday (working on a different
draft, as it happens), and so was unable to jump in on this issue
until today.

Having now reviewed the recent discussions on the list, I agree
rather completely with Bernie's statement below.  I understand
Ted's objections (I think), though I don't feel they are nearly
as severe as he does.

That said, in the interests of moving forward the basic relay
agent information draft, I don't think we have any alternative
but to remove the subnet mask suboption into a separate
draft/RFC.

Let's get at least the basic relay agent information option
finished!

Cheers -- Kim