From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kurt Van Dijck Subject: Re: j1939 (Higher Layer Protocols) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:14:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20151116131419.GB28081@airbook.eia.lan> References: <20151105180831.GA24951@bamboo.electronicsoup> <563BAC5A.8060604@posteo.de> <20151109194823.GA6539@bamboo.electronicsoup> <20151110105257.GA10664@airbook.eia.lan> <20151115215919.GA8018@BSA-cub> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from relaygateway01.edpnet.net ([212.71.1.210]:29600 "EHLO relaygateway01.edpnet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751380AbbKPNPq (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2015 08:15:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151115215919.GA8018@BSA-cub> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: John Whitmore Cc: "Menschel.P" , linux-can@vger.kernel.org [...] > > > > > > > > Maybe I could jsut Linux J1939 but that might depend on subtle differences in > > > Transport protocol. > > > > > > Which subtle differences you refer to? > > I read SAE-J1939 and ISO11783, and I found no differences. > > Can you give an example? > > > > Kurt > > Sorry for the delay in responding been distracted. I've never read SAE-J1939 > but only ISO11783 I should have made it clearer when I said "might". I > was meaning that there might be differences between the two I don't know. > > I sort of assumed when they took SAE-J1939 to create ISO11783 that they had a > good reason (Apart from selling another standard) for creating a new standard. They have very different application layers. That does however not justify re-defining the transport layers, indeed. Kurt > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-can" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html