Subject: Re: Unit_Sw_Version

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:17:49 -0800

I've talked with some of Joseph's coworkers
off-line. Joseph is out of the office right now.
It appears EtherType as the Unit_Sw_Version is
okay. I'd like to take this a step further to
reiterate the idea of using the RFC number.

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.

Input please ...

-myron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hattig, Myron [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 2:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Unit_Sw_Version
>     <deleted>
> Heck, maybe we should just have the RFC number be the
> Unit_Sw_Version.
>
> -myron
>