Re: Procedural question (Re: SIP API spec)

Paul Tsuchiya <> Thu, 28 January 1993 19:01 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09328; 28 Jan 93 14:01 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09324; 28 Jan 93 14:01 EST
Received: from Sun.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21235; 28 Jan 93 14:04 EST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04586; Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:52:18 PST
Received: from sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08495; Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:52:24 PST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engmail1) by sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07786; Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:50:46 PST
Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22035; Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:52:25 PST
Received: from by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04411; Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:50:32 PST
Received: from by (4.1/4.7) id <AA03939> for ip-encaps@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM; Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:45:35 EST
Received: by (4.1/4.7) id <AA07633> for; Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:45:34 EST
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:45:34 EST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Paul Tsuchiya <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: Procedural question (Re: SIP API spec)
Content-Length: 575

>From: Carl Beame <>
>	One reason I have decided to back and impliment SIP/IPAE is the
>fact that the "(BIP)" was a fixed length and not a veriable length address.
>This is very important when implimenting in a PC-DOS environment. If we try
>to use a general specification we will have to make the calling structures
>more complex then they would need to be for just SIP.

For all its worth, the Pip API doesn't pass the Pip Address.  At most,
it passes the Pip ID, which is a fixed length thing......I don't know
if this helps the DOS case or not....