Subj : linked
To : Bob Short
From : Frank Vest
Date : Fri Dec 13 2002 06:37 pm
On (13 Dec 02) Bob Short wrote to Frank Vest...
Hello Bob,
FV> BS> You'll agree it needs /something/ though, right? ;-)
FV> No (wrong).
BS> I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions on many topics, but
BS> in this I think you are a bit blinded. Why, I have no idea. Nearly
BS> everyone here has agreed that the current NLF is insufficient to deal
BS> with current (much less emerging) technology.
Agreement? Everyone?
FV> I've been through this before in this echo. It's a mess. :-) What
FV> needs to be done, IMHO, is to get the specs/standards in order. Then
FV> get programs that are still being developed to follow those specs and
FV> standards.
BS> My point exactly. I'd like to see both happen at the same time.
BS> We have to condescend to the lowest common denominator (legacy SW),
BS> and concentrate of current and emerging software.
<sigh>
Let me go through this a little better and see what gets stirred up.
Binkp, telnet and ftp are protocols for IP. Just as zedzap, emsi,
zmodem and others are protocols for POTS.
The Nodelist is a comma delimited file used by Fidonet mailers (and
other programs) to determine /where/ to connect.
Now, using that and your statement, along with the arguments of others
that the Nodelist can not show binkp, telnet and other connection
information or emerging technologies, I put it forth that the Nodelist
could not and did not work properly with POTS to begin with. There is
no indication that my POTS mailer can do emsi, zedzap or other
protocols.
The Nodelist gives information on where to contact Nodes. In the POTS
realm, that is the phone number. In the IP world, that is the IP
address or domain name. Protocols are not shown in the Nodelist, and
for good reason. Imagine if there had to be a flag for emsi, zedzap
and all the other POTS protocols. Taking this further, consider POTS
Nodes with multiple phone lines. What if each one wanted to list each
line with different protocols? One line does emsi only while others
will handle other protocols. <whew!>
Of course, the argument is that with POTS, the protocols are
negotiated upon connection. There is a thread in the FTSC_PUBLIC echo
that is attempting to work out just such a thing for IP Nodes. It
might be done with a "Fidonet Finger Daemon" or some other method,
but, if successful, this would remove the need for protocol flags in
the Nodelist for IP Nodes (IE: IBN, IFT and such). This, in turn would
bring the Nodelist back to what it should be. A comma delimited file
for Fidonet mailers to determining "how" to contact other Fidonet
mailers instead of what "protocols" to use to make contact.
Even in the IP mailers, there is no indication that the telnet mailer
can do emsi, zedzap or other protocols... but some can. :-)
Now, put this into operation. Put the IP or domain in the "name" field
of the Nodelist. Standardize an IP flag ("IP" would do) that tells IP
mailers to access the finger daemon on the default "Fidonet" port at
the IP/domain address listed to get the information on what the Node
is capable of and what port(s).
With this in place, the current Nodelist would work for "legacy"
mailers since there is nothing really changed in it... just the
addition of /one/ flag (instead of several). I think it would also
work for emerging technologies since the method of determining the
ports, protocols and other such is via "emerging" technologies (the
Internet and a finger daemon).
To go one step further... It has been pointed out that many IP mailers
don't rely on the Fidonet Nodelist anyway.
To anyone that wants to chop this reply up and argue each paragraph,
sentence or word, please don't. Please read all of this reply before
your beat me up. :-) I think I have covered legacy software as well
as emerging software.
Regards,
Frank
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
http://biseonline.com/r19
... Well, there you go. Are you sorry you asked?
--- PPoint 3.01
* Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
