Yes, Microsoft adding cruft to a good protocol. It is a clear layer
violation and a duplication of DHCP/BOOTP functionality. Yet another
example of Microsoft implementing something in a redundant way because of
their Not Invented Here attitude w.r.t. the Internet. The right way is to
do it in DHCP. Now thanks to Microsoft, you'll get to configure it in two
places until Win95 boxes go away.
>Why didn't they share it earlier?
Because they submitted it to the PPP Working Group and it was rejected (I
remember, I was one of the members of the group that voiced opposition).
Note that RFC 1877 is an *informational* RFC. The options didn't make it
through the standards process. The one good thing they did was ask for
vendor specific option numbers, rather than grabbing them out of the air
(*cough* Ascend *cough*).
Other Microsoft cruft: Commandeering a bit in the CCP protocol, and using C
style strings in some of their options. People would accept Microsoft's
contributions if they actually tried to make them fit correctly.
Sorry about the off-PM topic, but this can't possibly be worse than the "No
real hackerz are kool and these lusers don't blah blah blah blah" kruft
that passed by recently.
ObPortmaster: I've used Multitech MT2834MR managed rackmounts for six
months w/o a single problem, running 24/7.
Jim Browne jbrowne@jbrowne.com
"Straggle into the station, headed for your destination; But the price you
pay to nowhere has increased a dollar more." - Celebration Day/ Led Zeppelin