|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
IETF RFC 2132 (1997)
|
|
Title:
|
DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions, S. Alexander, R. Droms, March 1997.
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Normative
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This specification defines DHCP options and bootp vendor extentions widely used in the world, and constitutes an essential part of the Recommendation.
Since this specification consists of huge number of pages, making reference saves a lot of paper in the printing process.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=2132
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
This RFC has been in existence, in previous versions (RFC 1533), since October 1993.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 2132 was published in March 1997. It is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Draft Standard" state. Current standards status of this document can be found at ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std1.txt
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
RFC 2132 is describing DHCP (RFC 2131) options. RFC 2132 is updated by RFC 3442.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[1] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, Bucknell University, March 1997./
[2] Reynolds, J., "BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions", RFC 1497, USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1993. /
[3] Croft, W., and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol", RFC 951, Stanford University and Sun Microsystems, September 1985./
[4] Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1989./
[5] Mogul, J., and J. Postel, "Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure", STD 5, RFC 950, USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1985./
[6] Postel, J., and K. Harrenstien, "Time Protocol", STD 26, RFC 868, USC/Information Sciences Institute, SRI, May 1983./
[7] Postel, J., "Name Server", IEN 116, USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1979./
[8] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987./
[9] Postel, J., "Quote of the Day Protocol", STD 23, RFC 865, USC/Information Sciences Institute, May 1983./
[10] McLaughlin, L., "Line Printer Daemon Protocol", RFC 1179, The Wollongong Group, August 1990./
[11] Accetta, M., "Resource Location Protocol", RFC 887, CMU, December 1983./
[12] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC 1191, DECWRL,Stanford University, November 1990./
[13] Deering, S., "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC 1256, Xerox PARC, September 1991./
[14] Leffler, S. and M. Karels, "Trailer Encapsulations", RFC 893, U. C. Berkeley, April 1984./
[15] Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over Ethernet Networks", RFC 894, Symbolics, April 1984./
[16] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", RFC 1042,USC/Information Sciences Institute, February 1988./
[17] Sun Microsystems, "System and Network Administration", March 1990./
[18] Mills, D., "Internet Time Synchronization: The Network Time Protocol", RFC 1305, UDEL, March 1992./
[19] NetBIOS Working Group, "Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP transport: Concepts and Methods", STD 19, RFC 1001, March 1987./
[20] NetBIOS Working Group, "Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP transport: Detailed Specifications", STD 19, RFC 1002, March 1987./
[21] Scheifler, R., "FYI On the X Window System", FYI 6, RFC 1198, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, January 1991./
[22] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700, USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
References should always be made to RFC numbers (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References not to be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic". Normative references should not be made to RFCs that are not standards, for example, "Informational" and "Experimental" RFCs.
|
|
