[Guy Harris <gharris@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.