Subj : What would YOU do?
To : Fred Riccio
From : Carol Shenkenberger
Date : Sat Dec 08 2018 06:07 pm
Re: What would YOU do?
By: Fred Riccio to The Candidates on Fri Dec 07 2018 10:05 am
FR>>> Node 1:275/100@fidonet shenks.dyndns.org;shenks.synchro.net -
MR>> This is what I've meant with the confusion about which "standard"
MR>> applies. Apparently Jerry's converter follows the undocumented
MR>> feature Carol mentioned. So it would extract additional addresses
MR>> which aren't intended for binkp for a node entry following the FTSC
MR>> docs (if listed take just the address in the IBN flag). How do we
MR>> resolve this dilemma?
FR> It seems that we have at least two methods that are used to deal with
FR> multi-homed systems, both methods are currently used and very popular.
FR> Jerry's script processes one INA and one IBN record (both with addresses)
FR> as multi-homed. Binkp.net seems to ignore the fact that multi-homed
FR> systems even exist, it returns only one address for all combinations of
FR> INA/IBN. We haven't been told what Markus' and Uli's tools do, so there
FR> may be two other methods. FTS-5001 does not document either one of these
FR> methods.
FR> How will you clean this up? Be specific. "Change FTS-5001" isn't a good
FR> answer. Tell us WHAT you will change and what you will change it to. Keep
FR> in mind that FTSC standards document "current practice".
This may be a case of a proposal to standardize it. If we have at least one
functional tool that uses the dual listing, that can be a base for an actual
FTS instead of a FSP.
