Subj : FTS-5001
To : Fred Riccio
From : Markus Reschke
Date : Thu Dec 06 2018 07:44 pm
Hello Fred!
Dec 06 13:06 2018, Fred Riccio wrote to Markus Reschke:
MR>> How do we resolve this dilemma?
FR> FTSC needs to document current practice.
Which one? ;) Now we have two, partly contradicting.
MR>> If all entries for Z1 nodes follow the
MR>> undocumented feature then I could add a special case to my tool to
MR>> take also the addresses listed in the INA flag.
FR> Good luck getting ALL nodes to do anything. Why only zone 1? It
FR> should apply to all FTN networks and zones.
I agree that we should have one standard for all nodes. But we have two now and
have to figure how to merge them into one.
MR>> The frustating thing is that it's hard for software developers to
MR>> know about undocumented features.
FR> Proper testing should uncover current practice. When you wrote your
FR> tool, did you check it against BinkD.Txt (with diff, FC, or a similar
FR> tool) to see if it was generating the same data file? How many
FR> NodeLists did you compare?
I did comparisons with the output of other tools. The funny thing was that my
tool extracted more binkp nodes. There are nodes with addresses hidden in the
system name or telephone number, the DO4 user flag and more. Besides checking
the FTSC docs I had to figure out what else is hidden in the nodelist.
MR>> Please tell the FTSC about such stuff, so we are able to
MR>> document that.
FR> Ummm... I think I just did. With EchoMail to the FTSC chair in a
FR> public echo conference. It even got the attention of an FTSC member
FR> (you). The ball is in your court.
First we have to get all the details of the undocumented standard. How are port
numbers handled? If we take Carol's nodelist entry as example and assume she
runs binkd on port 8080 we would have:
INA:shenks.synchro.net,IBN:shenks.dyndns.org:8080
Does the port 8080 also apply to shenks.synchro.net? Or is the standard binkp
port assumed for shenks.synchro.net?
FR> FYI, I agree that using two IBN records, as documented in FTS-5001,
FR> would have been a LOT cleaner than one INA and one IBN, but one of
FR> each DOES work. To quote a past FTSC chair, "If you do it this way,
FR> it will work".
