Subj : Nodelist Thoughts?
To   : Michiel van der Vlist
From : Nil Alexandrov
Date : Sat Oct 24 2020 06:00 pm

Hello, Michiel!

Saturday October 24 2020 09:59, from Michiel van der Vlist -> Nil Alexandrov:

NA>> It is that the IBN flag cannot include the host address itself,
NA>> that is why we usually have a combination of INA+IBN in the
NA>> nodelist.

MV> Wrong.

You are right. I have checked the FTS-5001 http://ftsc.org/docs/fts-5001.006 and these are examples

 Example: IBN:host1.example1.tld,IBN:host2.example2.tld
 Or:      INA:host1.example1.tld,INA:host2.example2.tld,IBN


MV> IBN:fido.vlist.eu  or  IBN:f5556.vlist.eu:24555 is perfectly valid.
MV> This is shorter than using the INA,IBN combination.

The idea behind is that the node answers on INA defined hostname with different IBN/IFC/.. protocols. It is not that different protocols are served from different machines usually, so the hostname will be mentioned only once.

You can think of it in the following way: INA is the phone number and IBN/IFC/.. is the V32/V42/..

MV> Using the INA flag for the host addess is shorter when there are
MV> multiple protocol flags.

What if a node only supports BinkP protocol? Probably, a single IBN record can hold the hostname itself without additional INA flag, but it would be easier to add a new protocol flag in future.

MV> INA:fido.vlist.eu,IBN,ITN is fine as well.
MV> It is all documented in FTS-5001.

Agreed.

Best Regards, Nil
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: -=NIL BBS=- (2:5015/46)

You are viewing proxied material from vert.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.