Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU!almquist
From: almquist@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU ("Philip Almquist")
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Zero manufacturer code in SNAP?
Message-ID: <9007202218.AA03727@jessica.stanford.edu>
Date: 20 Jul 90 22:18:25 GMT
References: <64617@sgi.sgi.com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21

Vernon,
> Every vendor must offer ethernet TCP/IP encapsulation, and that must be
> the default.  Adding support for 802.3 (RFC-1042) is not required, and
> does not increase the number of compliant machines with which an
> implementation can interoperate.  Historically, there were very few
> machines that used only RFC-1042.
> ...
> Thus, there are no (or very few and exceptional) business reasons for a
> vendor to offer RFC-1042 support, or even to continue existing RFC-1042
> support.

	This is not ENTIRELY true.  A host which supports RFC-894 must
be able to receive RFC-1042 packets if it wants to be unconditionally
compliant with the Host Requirements RFCs.  Only the ability to send
RFC-1042 packets is truly optional.

	This topic was debated at some length by the authors of Host
Requirements.  The requirements were rather carefully chosen to allow
for a transition to RFC-1042 in the long run without breaking everything
in the short run.
							Philip