We are planning to implement the most basic EDS file with our DeviceNet product. This product has several different software implementations, each having about 150 parameters. We currently configure this device using a software package designed specifically for this product. We prefer not to attempt to implement an EDS file that allows device configuration from a DeviceNet manager as this will double our software maintenance requirement. This appears to be acceptable according to the DeviceNet specification. In your experience, will this be acceptable to DeviceNet users in the marketplace? Answered by William H. (Bill) Moss, ODVA Executive Director, e-mail: A27) The customer expectation is that he can go to the web and download the EDS file to configure your product if he doesn^t have or can^t find the EDS files or documentation on how to configure. We understand there are some products that require custom software to configure. Starting in the May, 1999 DeviceNet Product Catalog, ODVA will add a feature box for configuration method showing four selections (hardware switches, EDS, parameter object, and custom software). Longer term, our system SIG will start up a tools SIG. The goal is to publish an API for custom software tools so you (or your customer) will be able to integrate your custom configuration software with DeviceNetManager, NetSolver, or any other DeviceNet configuration package. Then, instead of 150 EDS files posted on our web site, you can post the custom configuration software. If you go to labs to test your product, you will need an EDS file to configure the version of the product that is being tested at the lab. We are reselling a device that comes with an EDS file from the manufacturer. The EDS file states the Device is product type = 0 and major revision = 0 and minor rev = 2 (revision 0.2). Rockwell Software product RSNetworx for DeviceNet does not accept this as a valid revision. However, the manufacturer of the device states that Rockwell Software^s DeviceNet Manager did accept this value when they developed it several years ago. Is version 0.2 a valid revision according to the Specifications? Answered by Ray Romito, DeviceNet Trainer, e-mail: A42) No. Zero is not valid for either the major or minor rev fields. If it supported it years ago, it was by mistake. In defense of those who developed product back then, the Specifications were not clearly written initially, but has since been corrected (several years ago). The couple vendors that have products like this have had plenty of time to fix this.