Subj : Re: linked
To : Frank Vest
From : Bob Short
Date : Sat Dec 14 2002 07:42 pm
On 14 Dec 02 13:30:46, Frank Vest said the following to Bob Short:
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
FV> BS> Correct... in it's current format.
FV> 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.
Again... currently... and quite relevant. AAMOF, we find ourselves
in a worse position than back then. Up until now, there was room to
add provisions for additional modem protocols (which were the only
type of changes). We are now at a crossroad, where the NL can no
longer be kludged to accomodate all the desired info, and still fall
within the limitations of SW that reads/processes it.
FV> BS> All known analog modem connection methods can be so indicated in the
FV> BS> NL.
FV> Yes and No. The phone number is listed and the type (name flag of the)
FV> mailer. XA for Frontdoor and so forth. Nothing about connection
FV> methods as far as protocols are concerned.
FV> no indication that my POTS mailer can do emsi, zedzap or other
FV> protocols.
There is no NEED for session negotiation info for POTS, nor should
there be for IP. It is (and should) be built into the mailers.
<hearing echo>
FV> No need for binkp to be listed either. That protocol can be listed in
FV> the "mailer name" as above for POTS mailers. In reality, I don't know
FV> why the mailer flags (XA, XX and such) need to be there anyway. I'm
FV> sure there is a good reason, but using this same good reason, the IP
FV> flag that is proposed could be made into a "mailer" flag.
That's a possibility. I think the mailer-specific flag was because
not all mailers had all session capacities, and was a means to help
newer mailers connect easier, and still maintain backward compatibility.
Someone will correct me if I'm wr...wr...wro... well, you know. ;-)
FV> 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
I don't undersatnd why you leep bringing session negotiation methods
up... we are beyond that for POTS, and for IP, able to address with
either built in mailer query, or listing fields in an expanded NL.
(remember... whatever direction we take, there will be room for new
information, so long as we look forward).
FV> BS> Again, this session information is automatically negotiated between
FV> BS> the two mailers (not users, btw). Why would one need to differentiate
FV> BS> this in the NL? If a particular mailer cannot negotiate a connection,
FV> BS> it's not writte within FTS specs.
FV> Beg to differ. The only protocol required for POTS by Fidonet is FTS-1
FV> (Xmodem, I believe). If my mailer only does Xmodem, I'm still within
FV> requirements.
Now you're complicating things further by bring in another variety
of fruit... transfer protocols. Focus on the areas that need to be
addressed.
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.
If the standards favor DNS, yes. I don't think that's going to
fly as the only method of addressing. My money's on ESLNL format,
or (Gawd<tm> forbid) XML.
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. :-)
FV> BS> Again, the abaility to determine that should be built into the
FV> BS> mailers. If it isn't, it's not compliant, and shouldn't be used.
FV> Then BinkD, Irex and several other mailers are not compliant. I can
FV> not connect to BinkD or Irex and make a negotiated connection. I have
FV> to tell them that the system I'm calling does binkp, ftp or whatever
FV> protocol. It's not negotiated.
I don't believe standards have been written for IP session connections.
I'd have to read the FTS docs to know for sure. Have minimum connect
requirements been set by the FTSC?
FV> BS> Fine.... show me an example entry that can do this... without breaking
FV> BS> current software.
FV> That's not relevant in this context. There is no software that can...
I think it is, since we're debating on whether the SLNF can continue
to be used. You have some interesting examples, but none seem to go
futher than (most of) todays technology.
FV> FWIW, I don't think you and I are that far apart on this thing. I hope
FV> that with time, we will get closer.
Where you and I meet will mean little, since we won't be making the
decisions. I just hope that our voices are heard and taken for face
value. :)
