What rationale would that be? I doubt the FSF would write a version of the AGPL designed to let you use DRM to end-run around it if that's what you're getting at (you can always write such a license yourself, but, why?)
I mean ... Not to rehash all the v2 VS v3 arguments ... But essentially you only care about the source code being shared and you don't care about tivoization and forcing additional hardware requirements or requirements that "used code" is changeable by endusers.
The AGPL's extension just increases any modified code's availability. It's extending the principles behind v2 to networked devices. You gotta share your changes and you can't cleverly avoid it by doing a SaaS instead of selling software/hardware
It doesn't extend the v3 principles (which increase end user's rights). That would be to force companies to allow users to modify and run modified code on the networked device/server (which would be the networked equivalent of a anti-tivoization).
So the AGPL's idea pairs more naturally with v2 in my opinion
