I think that just CIP would be ok, at least for people using industrial
ethernet.
I have changed the name of the file and all the stuff that's visible (at
least I think so). There is still variable names and defines containing
ENIP, is this something that have to be fixed before this dissector can be
accepted?
-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Harris [mailto:gharris@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: den 10 juni 2003 12:31
To: Joakim Wiberg
Cc: ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Dissector for EtherNet/IP
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 04:53:58PM +0200, Joakim Wiberg wrote:
> Yes I agree that EtherNet/IP isn't a very good name if you're not
> familiar with industrial ethernet. If it make sence I think that the
> name shall be chaged to CIP, as you state.
> In fact this was the name we first used, we made the name change since
> the name CIP also applyes to DeviceNet and ControlNet. EtherNet/IP uses
> some parts that isn't included in the CIP common specification,
> therefore we decided to call the dissector EtherNet/IP instaed of CIP.
> If you think that we should call the dissector CIP instead to avoid
> confusion, I'm happy with that.
If it were called CIP, would the people using industrial Ethernet know
what it is?
You might want to call it "CIP-over-IP" or "CIP/IP" or something such as
that, to emphasize that it's more than just the common CIP stuff.
Attachment:
packet-cip.c
Description: Binary data
