Subject: [Captive-portals] option 160 conflict

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:56:30 +0100

Bernie Volz (volz) <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > The issue with the 128-254 option range is that they were, originally,
    > site-specific options (i.e., available for use within a site). However,
    > many vendors hijacked them. And, when we reassigned much of this range
    > to the IANA assigned options pool, the vendors failed to request a more
    > permanent assignment for their option use. I suspect though that you
    > are well aware of that entire process
    > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3942).

    > I don't know when Polycom decided to use this 160 option as RFC3942
    > dates back to November 2004.

This explains a lot about why we conflicted on option 160, and that perhaps
we shouldn't have been so upset.

It seems to me that DHC WG has to help IANA avoid conflicts like this in the
future.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-