Subj : linked
To   : Bob Short
From : Frank Vest
Date : Sat Dec 14 2002 01:30 pm

On (14 Dec 02) Bob Short wrote to Frank Vest...

Hello Bob,

FV> Agreement? Everyone?
BS> Please read me correctly.  I said 'nearly everyone'.

My apologies.

FV> Let me go through this a little better and see what gets stirred up.
BS> OK... but you may not like licking the spoon.  ;-)

Depends. :)

FV> The Nodelist is a comma delimited file used by Fidonet mailers (and
FV> other programs) to determine /where/ to connect.
BS> And 'how/to what extent' to connect.

Exactly.

FV> Now, using that and your statement, along with the arguments of others
FV> that the Nodelist can not show binkp, telnet and other connection
BS> Correct... in it's current format.

Not relevant in the context of the rest of the sentence.

FV> information or emerging technologies, I put it forth that the Nodelist
FV> could not and did not work properly with POTS to begin with. There is
BS> I beg to differ.  FTS were written FOR pots, and "adjusted" for IP.
BS> All known analog modem connection methods can be so indicated in the
BS> NL.

Yes and No. The phone number is listed and the type (name flag of the)
mailer. XA for Frontdoor and so forth. Nothing about connection
methods as far as protocols are concerned.

FV> no indication that my POTS mailer can do emsi, zedzap or other
FV> protocols.
BS> This is independant of the NL, as session protocols are inherently
BS> negotiated at connect.  No such info is needed in the NL (for POTS).

No need for binkp to be listed either. That protocol can be listed in
the "mailer name" as above for POTS mailers. In reality, I don't know
why the mailer flags (XA, XX and such) need to be there anyway. I'm
sure there is a good reason, but using this same good reason, the IP
flag that is proposed could be made into a "mailer" flag.

FV> The Nodelist gives information on where to contact Nodes. In the POTS
FV> realm, that is the phone number. In the IP world, that is the IP
FV> address or domain name. Protocols are not shown in the Nodelist, and
FV> for good reason. Imagine if there had to be a flag for emsi, zedzap
FV> and all the other POTS protocols. Taking this further, consider POTS

BS> <handing over box of Kleenex>

BS> You're making this sound more complex than it needs.  This is because
BS> you're putting different connection types in the same basket.  I will
BS> help by understanding that this is NOT about POTS, or POTS session
BS> connect methods.  Those are well documented and applied, and are not
BS> in need of revision.

FV> Nodes with multiple phone lines. What if each one wanted to list each
FV> line with different protocols? One line does emsi only while others
FV> will handle other protocols.  <whew!>

BS> Again, this session information is automatically negotiated between
BS> the two mailers (not users, btw).  Why would one need to differentiate
BS> this in the NL?  If a particular mailer cannot negotiate a connection,
BS> it's not writte within FTS specs.

Beg to differ. The only protocol required for POTS by Fidonet is FTS-1
(Xmodem, I believe). If my mailer only does Xmodem, I'm still within
requirements.

BS> <retrieving Kleenex, wiping brow>

Take a break if you need. :-)

FV> Of course, the argument is that with POTS, the protocols are
FV> negotiated upon connection. There is a thread in the FTSC_PUBLIC
FV> echo that is attempting to work out just such a thing for IP Nodes.
BS> Been reading that, and there are some good ideas there... all of which
BS> should follow the same methods as POTS... built into the mailer, not
BS> the nodelist.  I'm pretty sure that some of the IP authors neglected
BS> to take into consideration future technologies, just as the FTSC...
BS> which is why we are here today.

Good possibility. That is what needs to be fixed.

FV> but, if successful, this would remove the need for protocol flags in
FV> the Nodelist for IP Nodes (IE: IBN, IFT and such). This, in turn would
FV> bring the Nodelist back to what it should be. A comma delimited file
FV> for Fidonet mailers to determining "how" to contact other Fidonet
FV> mailers instead of what "protocols" to use to make contact.

BS> I'm not sure this is entirely possible, or even desired.  There are
BS> too many factors in IP connection and transport.  Too much depends
BS> on 3rd parties (ISP's, DS's, FW's, etc) to incorporate every sort
BS> of possible condition into a mailer(s).  We'll still need the NL for
BS> a good share of it.

We need the Nodelist to give the "phone number" (IP/domain address for
IP mailers). That's all that is needed. That is all that was done for
POTS mailers in that day and age.

FV> Even in the IP mailers, there is no indication that the telnet mailer
FV> can do emsi, zedzap or other protocols... but some can. :-)
BS> Again, the abaility to determine that should be built into the
BS> mailers. If it isn't, it's not compliant, and shouldn't be used.

Then BinkD, Irex and several other mailers are not compliant. I can
not connect to BinkD or Irex and make a negotiated connection. I have
to tell them that the system I'm calling does binkp, ftp or whatever
protocol. It's not negotiated.

FV> Now, put this into operation. Put the IP or domain in the "name" field
FV> of the Nodelist. Standardize an IP flag ("IP" would do) that tells IP
FV> mailers to access the finger daemon on the default "Fidonet" port at
FV> the IP/domain address listed to get the information on what the Node
FV> is capable of and what port(s).
BS> Fine.... show me an example entry that can do this... without breaking
BS> current software.

That's not relevant in this context. There is no software that can
currently do this. That is the point. This is a proposal. Just like
the proposals for new Nodelist formats. If you mean a Nodelist
listing, then;

,6308,web-idiot.d2g.com,McKinney_TX,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064,33600,CM,XA,
V34,V42b,IBN

The "IBN" flag would be replaced with "IP" (or whatever "standard" is
decided on). Current POTS software is not affected and IP software can
adapt... some IP software is already adapted except for the use of the
"IP" (or whatever) flag.

To allow the "system name" and "sysop name" fields to be kept as some
desire;

,6308,Collin_County_Station,web-idiot.d2g.com,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064,
33600,CM,XA,V34,V42b,IP

If "push comes to shove":

,6308,Collin_County_Station,McKinney_Tx,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064,
33600,CM,XA,V34,V42b,IP:web-idiot.d2g.com

FV> To go one step further... It has been pointed out that many IP mailers
FV> don't rely on the Fidonet Nodelist anyway.
BS> Don't they extract the IP info from the NL to create their proprietary
BS> dialing list?  If not, who/what tells them?

Some do, and some don't. Those that don't must be given the type of
protocol to use by configuration of the Sysop.

FV> To anyone that wants to chop this reply up and argue each paragraph,
BS> <putting away jigsaw>
BS> I did read your entire message before replying, as I usually do.  :)
BS> I'll leave the technical arguments to the techies, and try to learn
BS> as I read.  I don't perport to know a whole lot about the Inet end
BS> of this debate... only that what we have isn't working, and will get
BS> worse as time and technology progress.

I'll agree in part with this. The main problem, I think, is the lack
of standards. That, I believe, is what got Fidonet into these problems
to begin with.


FWIW, I don't think you and I are that far apart on this thing. I hope
that with time, we will get closer.


Regards,

Frank

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
http://biseonline.com/r19

--- PPoint 3.01
* Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)

You are viewing proxied material from cvs.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.