Subj : linked
To : Bob Short
From : Frank Vest
Date : Sun Dec 15 2002 12:37 am
On (14 Dec 02) Bob Short wrote to Frank Vest...
Hello Bob,
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.
BS> Again... currently... and quite relevant. AAMOF, we find ourselves
BS> in a worse position than back then. Up until now, there was room to
BS> add provisions for additional modem protocols (which were the only
BS> type of changes). We are now at a crossroad, where the NL can no
BS> longer be kludged to accomodate all the desired info, and still fall
BS> within the limitations of SW that reads/processes it.
That is a limit of the software, not the Nodelist format.
BS> <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.
BS> That's a possibility. I think the mailer-specific flag was because
BS> not all mailers had all session capacities, and was a means to help
BS> newer mailers connect easier, and still maintain backward
BS> compatibility.
BS> Someone will correct me if I'm wr...wr...wro... well, you know. ;-)
I don't know for sure either and I'm figuring that we will both be
corrected. :-)
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
BS> I don't undersatnd why you leep bringing session negotiation methods
Because protocols are being listed in the current Fidonet Nodelist.
They shouldn't be listed there.
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.
BS> Now you're complicating things further by bring in another variety
BS> of fruit... transfer protocols. Focus on the areas that need to be
BS> addressed.
This is an area that needs to be addressed. Protocols are being listed
in the current Fidonet Nodelist. Binkp is /not/ a mailer. Binkp is a
transfer protocol. BinkD is a mailer. There is a difference.
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> If the standards favor DNS, yes. I don't think that's going to
BS> fly as the only method of addressing. My money's on ESLNL format,
BS> or (Gawd<tm> forbid) XML.
Well... at least we agree on XML. ;-) Not that I totally disagree on
DNS and/or ESLNL either.
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.
BS> I don't believe standards have been written for IP session
BS> connections. I'd have to read the FTS docs to know for sure. Have
BS> minimum connect requirements been set by the FTSC?
I don't think so. That is.. er.. was the point of my
proposal/idea/thought/whatever you call it.
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...
BS> I think it is, since we're debating on whether the SLNF can continue
BS> to be used. You have some interesting examples, but none seem to go
BS> futher than (most of) todays technology.
The examples give the IP mailer the knowledge that the Node is IP
capable and where (domain/IP address) to go on the Internet for a
connect. What is left to do is figure out how to determine if the
domain/Ip address is for binkp or other protocol.
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.
BS> Where you and I meet will mean little, since we won't be making the
BS> decisions. I just hope that our voices are heard and taken for face
BS> value. :)
Agreed.
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)
