Well, I perused RFC 1122 which states: An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST and all the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST requirements but not all the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant". And I don't think that the server implements all the MUST requirements, of which there are over 140. It looks like what he has done is create a device which responds to ip commands by reading the port number the command was sent to, and delivering some of the contents of the eeprom based on the port number. I wonder, however, how it deals with packets not meant for it's IP. Since it's directly off a computer acting as a router, it only gets packets meant for it's IP. It may very well be that it ignores the IP, assuming whatever it is belongs to it, and reads the port and the IP to send the results to. It would then be an easy matter to form a legitimate packet to send to the router. But until we see the code, it's a matter of speculation. I don't doubt that it could be done, but I doubt that it could be fully compliant, as stated, and only fit in 256 words of program memory. However, the neat thing is that it brought down some of the blocks for me that make me think that a TCP/IP stack on a pic is a near impossibility.... -Adam Matt Bennett wrote: > > I don't think anyone has mentioned this in the past few seconds... > > This was just posted on slashdot: > > http://slashdot.org/articles/99/07/14/1937221.shtml > > "Jason Asbahr writes " From the wearables list, Shrikumar wrote: > I'd like to announce what is a really tiny implementation of > TCP/IP stack and a really really tiny web-server. " > > Which contains a pointer to: > > http://www-ccs.cs.umass.edu/~shri/iPic.html > > Matt Bennett