In my conversations with Paul, he had no requirement for a separate dat=
a
channel.
<RKD> I thought this was one of Paul's requirements. Paul ???
snip ...
We should define such a lower layer only if the USB and 1394
people fail to define such a layer.
<RKD> I thought non-network attached printers were what were
<RKD> largely driving this discussion, i.e. $299 parallel port
<RKD> attached printers. I think all of the debate on TCP/IP
<RKD> is interesting, but I'd really like to see the 1394 solution
<RKD> FIRST!
=