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 <John_Brzozowski@Cable.Comcast.com>. The responsible Area Director is Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>.
