Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!TRWIND.IND.TRW.COM!karl
From: karl@TRWIND.IND.TRW.COM (Karl Auerbach)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: NetBIOS Datagrams: Potential Incompatibility
Message-ID: <8903171913.AA03503@trwind.ind.TRW.COM>
Date: 17 Mar 89 19:13:27 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 24

Once more -- RFC1001/1002 specify only the protocol, not the
service interface.

It is unfortunate that Sytek/IBM and RFC1002's pseudo code tend to
mix the protocol with the service functions.  To that extent RFC1001/2
are misleading.

It would simply have been better if RFC1001/2 had avoided even mentioning
NCB's and the typical operations entirely.  It would have avoided this
discussion about the material in the RFCs which are not part of the
specification but which were included merely to be helpful and assist
understanding.  I am sure this is why OSI doucments are so devoid of
explaination.

In any case Brett's comments are well taken -- the RFC should not be
misleading even in the ancillary material.  And the pseudo code should
be changed to remove references to operation of the service interface.


The only question in my mind is what is the "official" version of the
interface. I may have to grab some Sytek/IBM PC-net boards (the orignal
ones) and run a test.

				--karl--