Subject: Re: Unit_Sw_Version

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:17:47 -0800

Are there any objections to using RFC number? If no one response by the end of
the week, then this issue will be resolved. This is the last known issue for
the IPv4 over 1394 spec. We will do a WG last call directly after the next
version of the draft is published.

Thanks,

-myron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Johansson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 11:22 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Unit_Sw_Version
>
>
> In a message dated 99-01-29 16:18:59 EST,
> [email-masked] writes:
>
> <<Use of the RFC number allows us to identify MCAP, ARP, as
> well as IPv4 with
> a single Unit_Sw_Verions number. Also if we produce another
> RFC to address
> IPv4 over 1394 networks with bridges, we can do so. Just the
> EtherType does
> nothing to identify MCAP and ARP and does not allow us to
> identify IPv4 over
> bridged 1394 networks.>>
>
> I strongly agree that an RFC number is an appropriate value for
> Unit_SW_Version.
>
> The whole point of Unit_Spec_ID and Unit_SW_Version, taken
> together as a
> 48-bit number, is to uniquely identify a DOCUMENT that
> specifies the software
> interface. This was the concept in the CSR Architecture for
> configuration ROM.
>
> Peter Johansson
>
> Congruent Software, Inc.
> 98 Colorado Avenue
> Berkeley, CA  94707
>
> (510) 527-3926
> (510) 527-3856 FAX
>
> [email-masked]
>