On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:48:30 +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 10/27/20 2:23 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > > On 27.10.20 14:06, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > >> On 10/23/20 10:30 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > > > > No. It is 'Classical CAN'. I'm not very happy with that naming as there > > was already a 'CAN2.0B' specification to separate from the first version > > which only had 11 Bit identifiers. This could be Ancient CAN now :-D > > So Classical CAN is CAN2.0B? > > >> For example there was a press release to harmonize the CAN transceiver nameing > >> recently: > >> > >> https://can-cia.org/news/press-releases/view/harmonized-transceiver-naming/2020/7/16/ > > > > Yes, there you can find: > > > > "CAN high-speed transceivers might be used in Classical CAN, CAN FD, or > > CAN XL networks" What happened to 'Standard CAN' (<= CAN2.0A) and 'Extended CAN' (CAN2.0B)? Did those names became fossils now? Kurt
