[Greg S]
I don't think you are missing anything.
I also think you have a valid concern.
The decision was already made that the PWG 1394 subcommittee
would not try to solve the direct-print protocol,
but that it would be left to the PWG-C.
Randy's observation about weight of what is defined
so far may be valid. With respect to what to use
for the direct-print protocol, though, it is
simply an option which the PWG-C has available
to them.
Ats says:
> While speaking about CDBs,
> once the CDB definition become generic,
> there wil have to be some mechanism to distingush
> the layer above it.
>
> 1) decoding a defined header at the beginning of the CDB
> 2) preparing differnt login entry points for each session
> others....
[Greg S]
Yes, The decoding is routing information to go to the appropriate
transport.
On the phone conference we have already defined that
each transport stack requires it's own (data-link layer) login.
I'm not sure whether that applies to each instance of a
transport protocol, or simply to each type of transport
protocol.
> If the CDB definition is 1284.4 specific, of course
> it will not be necessary.
> Does this "glue" really need to support anything
> other than 1284.4 ?
[Greg S]
It's not required to support anything else at this point,
but further discussion is needed to understand the need
behind a connectionless transport. If a connectionless
transport were built upon the same SBP-2 behavior, then
routing would be needed.
> Am I missing something ?
>
> Ats
-- Greg Shue Hewlett-Packard Company Office Products Division gregs@sdd.hp.com ----------------------------------------------------------------