Subj : New Format vs DNS
To : All
From : Johannes Lundberg
Date : Sat Jul 20 2002 05:13 pm
(The technical things I'm speaking about here CAN and would be solved. But I'm
trying to point out the major differencies(?) here)
On one side, we have the DNS-system. Keeping the current nodelist as it is, and
using the Internet DNS-system for IP connections, with some extenstions and
glue, to make it work with diffrent transfer protocol, on user selected ports,
and (optionally) with HINFO, to provide system and sysop-name. Resulting in a
solution providing all the information in the current nodelist, except the
changed transport information. A completly robust solution.
On the other side, we have a a New Nodelist Format. A tag-based format,
containing a list of nodes. And along with each node, a list of 0 or more
transport defitiontions. Service type, and service specific data. For POTS(?),
it will contain Phone number, along with modem-flags. For BinkP, IP and port.
And so on. And in order for current nodes to prevail(?), public domain
conversion tools will be provided, making it impossible for current nodes to
even notice they are using a nodelist based on the new nodelist. A robust
solution as well.
Why do I prefer a New Nodelist Format over the DNS-system?
There is one major thing making me believe a New Nodelist Format would be the
best option for FidoNet. And I think you could call it network independency.
You will be able to add new transfer methods as time passes. The New Nodelist
Format could be used even after the death of the Internet. A solution that will
prevail.
Yes, I am a dreamer. But also a programmer and FidoNet SysOp that will work
hard for the future existance of this lovely phenomena(?).
