FSC-0020

                    Alternate Nodelist Flag Proposal

                          by Marshall Presnell
                             (109/639.106)

                           November 13, 1987

      Permission  to  reprint  and  distribute  this  document is
      granted so long as no payments are incurred for the use and
      distribution of this document and the author is credited.

      $Revision:   1.1  $

      $Log:   E:/SRC/NLPROC/PROJFILE/NODELIST.PRV  $

     Rev 1.1   13 Nov 1987 15:50:56   M. Presnell
  Added Update log into document body

      ------------------------------------------------------------

                             NODELIST FLAGS
                               A Proposal

      In order  to properly  code a function to read and interpret
      the nodelist  flags, several vexing problems arise. The most
      significant problem  is simply figuring out the capabilities
      of the  software running  at a  particular node. In order to
      solve this  confusion, I  propose the following standards to
      be accepted  by the  FTSC, IFNA,  and  any  other  anciliary
      organizations  which   contribute   to   the   content   and
      maintenance of the nodelist.

      First, a  code needs  to be  established for  each piece  of
      NETMAIL PROTOCOL CAPABLE software. This defines exactly WHAT
      will answer  the phone  and transfer  mail according to FTSC
      netmail  protocol   standards.  For  the  current  arena  of
      software,  I  propose  the  flag  and  operand  approach  as
      follows:

           ST: <- the FLAG, ST meaning System Type

           Operands:

           FD1 - Fido Version 11?
           FD2 - Fido Version 12?
           SD? - SEAdog version ?
           OP1 - Opus version 1.?
           BT? - BinkleyTerm version ?
           TY? - Tabby version ?
           DT? - Dutchie version ?
           (and others as needed, apologies to those I omitted)

           Therefore, the complete type flag would read:

                ST:FD2 for Fido v12x
                ST:OP1 for Opus version 1.xx
                ST:SD4 for SEAdog version 4.x

           This  gives the nodelist processor (and we illogical
           humans)  a  much  easier  time  in  interpreting the
           nodelist. I also recommend that the operands be of a
           set length (in the above example, 3 characters).

      Second, a  PROTOCOL code  needs to be established, using the
      same FLAG:OPERAND  approach as the system type flag. In this
      case:

           PR: <- The FLAG, meaning PRotocol

           and the operands:

           TS - TSYNC          (Fido v11 and v12)
           SL - SEAdog Link    (SEAdog)
           WZ - WaZoo          (Opus)
           others as the technology progresses.

           The operand field may contain multiple operands, as
           follows:

           PR:WZ/TS <- to indicate an Opus system

           In  the  event  of multiple operands, the most desired
           protocol for network communications should be first in
           the list of operands.

      Third, the  operation hours,  as before  in  a  FLAG:OPERAND
      combination as follows:

           OH: <- Operation Hours

           This  flag  is  followed  by the operation hours of the
           system regarding inbound MAIL only. The operation hours
           are in a fixed format as follows:

                D.HHMM-D.HHMM

           where  D  is the day number (Sunday being 1), HH is the
           24 hour military  hour, and MM is the minute. A special
           case of the day being 0 means all days 1 through 7. ALL
           times are EST (purely  arbitrary,  but ALL times in the
           nodelist  should  have  a  common base reference time).
           Therefore, a system which runs national  mail time only
           would be as follows:

                OH:0.0400-0.0500

           Multiple  operational  hours  may  be  specified  by
           separating the separate time specifiers with a slash
           as follows:

                OH:D.HHMM-D.HHMM/D.HHMM-D.HHMM/D.HHMM-D.HHMM

           Continuous inbound mail would be indicated as follows:

                OH:1.0000-7.2359

           It is important to note that these times are when the
           system  is  able  to  RECEIVE mail. These are NOT the
           actual operation  hours  of the BBS (if one exists at
           that node).

           The  time known as National Mail Hour (04:00 to 05:00
           EST)  is  automatically   ASSUMED  and  need  not  be
           incorporated into the FLAGS field. Since it is one of
           the  baseline  requirements  for  being listed in the
           nodelist, this assumption is a relatively safe one.

           Also,  this method should also be used to indicate the
           time(s) when File Requests are accepted. The suggested
           flag for  File  Requests is "FR:" and follows the same
           time specification logic as the OH: flag.

      Fourth, modem flags need  to  be  standardized  (until  the
      modems themselves can be  standardized),  for  a  hopefully
      "stop gap" measure, we could use the following:

           MDM: for the flag,

           TLB for Telebit Trailblazer
           HST for USR Courier HST
           H96 for Hayes 9600
           (and others as needed)

           Only ONE of these modem types can appear per node, and
           it has  no  relavence  unless the baud rate is greater
           than or equal to 9600.

           (This is one of those flags we can get rid of once the
           modem manufacturors establish a standard.)

      Fifth, the  Mail Only flag. Basically, it need to be changed
      to "#MO"  instead of  "MO:". All  flags which  do  not  have
      operands should not contain the colon (:) character.

      Flags occur  following the  seventh comma in a nodelist line
      and continue  to the end of the physical line. All flags and
      flag:operand combinations  are separated by commas, with the
      last flag  on  the  line  terminated  by  the  end  of  line
      character. Order of the flags is not critical.

      ------------------------------------------------------------

      I hope this proposal will serve to elicit ideas and comment.
      Please direct any inaccuracies, suggestions for improvement,
      comments,  and  constructive criticism to  Marshall Presnell
      at Fido node 109/639.106

      Thank you.