Subj : FTS-5001
To : Fred Riccio
From : Markus Reschke
Date : Thu Dec 06 2018 09:54 pm
Hi Fred!
Dec 06 15:13 2018, Fred Riccio wrote to Markus Reschke:
MR>> I did comparisons with the output of other tools. The funny thing was
MR>> that my tool extracted more binkp nodes. There are nodes with
MR>> addresses hidden in the system name or telephone number, the DO4 user
MR>> flag and more. Besides checking the FTSC docs I had to figure out
MR>> what else is hidden in the nodelist.
FR> It sounds like you have a problem. If you are looking for BinkP
FR> nodes, you should ONLY be checking for an IBN flag (with or without a
FR> host name). The addresses "hidden" in other places could be for some
FR> other protocol.
... or for binkp. ;) We have several entries in the nodelist which aren't
following standards. Some nodes forgot to update their entries when new flags,
like IBN, were added. Or they apply their own undocumented standards. When
writing a conversion tool for binkp you have to find all the oddities besides
what's in the FTSC docs. Or you cling on the FTSC standards and miss some
nodes.
The idea of standards is to agree on a common set of rules, a specific syntax
and what have you to build compatible systems. If people add new things without
consulting the standards comitee they might break the compatibility with other
systems. Unfortunately this happens all the time because someone thinks he has
the best idea since sliced bread, and the other parties have to find
workarounds or other solutions to keep their systems somewhat compatible. It
gives you a nice headache every time.
