From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com (mail-pf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C843B82052 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 04:20:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id c4so18568909pfb.1 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 04:20:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GCXUQws7hQjB9SXpIFs/6G+Oe3EF8ejf24prTesRccA=; b=GEfacO1BPH9br21CSEMTPGsGDfviw431PDHlIpSKt6EMFk+F2Cl5wXYlVAikIWFdoI xEKk7N/zm9Q+Ba8i3rXNFQB6q7sfARq03F6nbtt8cFMPXlcWn+mfpkCmq+hhNKcS16rN ZH3gKa3pxcBLqrqyaD2KFwAap2CGJyM5R+KIk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GCXUQws7hQjB9SXpIFs/6G+Oe3EF8ejf24prTesRccA=; b=H4I3cWBpissati9lPNMEGrbbsduWnx6wmvcTFNPp/ZNwvSpzio1NQ79WV6UPbFhK7H XwvbrbVeJati/U7LBqET/H7LHoikIaAr83M8pi7o66RHWk2d5loVNvGZU/zvFVAHPUY6 S9/qIJTuBirAj33fNwfCfp/UGyEM1SUhdR3e/9xz0WoGqgHpU4aqCC07HDI3/vm+uZBJ hVvTFtk6AqxDXn5pxlMNnCESs3c+cCPpvjUnO9Fa6cLObs/3ZqoCnOJno434/MliAE9F YZbIeLRcxWwTKiw8Oxz4dZHUyT/ngEsquUiYCHwUaiKDQED2ApL2QA+v8cWOjXOJdMju xg6g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02aw/avU1uALaJbpfeJJJgdMZR7UON9VmQstLyM5mwP20nImEx+wWTnMxbBBuOfUEsi X-Received: by 10.84.217.18 with SMTP id o18mr197863548pli.45.1481631638907; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 04:20:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.229.36.249] ([119.145.15.121]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 129sm80634172pgj.26.2016.12.13.04.20.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 04:20:38 -0800 (PST) To: "Zimmer, Vincent" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" References: <7491c75b-6f55-3da0-8983-55a72cd7ab49@linaro.org> <76DE84138CBE89489874B70B432D8F9B91479D2A@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com> Cc: "Tian, Feng" , "Wu, Jiaxin" , "Fu, Siyuan" , "Zeng, Star" From: Heyi Guo Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 20:20:19 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <76DE84138CBE89489874B70B432D8F9B91479D2A@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com> Subject: Re: Which revision of PXE spec does EDK2 code conform to? X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:20:39 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Vincent, Many thanks for your confirmation. Regards, Heyi 在 11/29/2016 9:08 PM, Zimmer, Vincent 写道: > Yes. For IPV4 TFTP-based PXE the wire protocol adheres to the PXE 2.1 specification with some errata that supercedes that frozen document found under section "E.4.20 PXE 2.1 specification wire protocol clarifications" of the UEFI 2.6 specification. For IPV6 PXE-style TFTP boot the wire protocol is found wholly in the UEFI 2.6 specification. > > Vincent > > -----Original Message----- > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Heyi Guo > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 3:38 AM > To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org > Cc: Tian, Feng ; Wu, Jiaxin ; Fu, Siyuan ; Zeng, Star > Subject: [edk2] Which revision of PXE spec does EDK2 code conform to? > > Hi folks, > > Which revision of PXE spec does EDK2 code conform to? Is it PXE v2.1? Do PXE implementations in MdeModulePkg and NetworkPkg comform to the same revision? > > Thanks and regards, > > Heyi > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel