Subj : linked To : Bob Short From : Frank Vest Date : Sat Dec 14 2002 01:30 pm On (14 Dec 02) Bob Short wrote to Frank Vest... Hello Bob, FV> Agreement? Everyone? BS> Please read me correctly. I said 'nearly everyone'. My apologies. FV> Let me go through this a little better and see what gets stirred up. BS> OK... but you may not like licking the spoon. ;-) Depends. :) FV> The Nodelist is a comma delimited file used by Fidonet mailers (and FV> other programs) to determine /where/ to connect. BS> And 'how/to what extent' to connect. Exactly. 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 BS> Correct... in it's current format. 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. There is BS> I beg to differ. FTS were written FOR pots, and "adjusted" for IP. BS> All known analog modem connection methods can be so indicated in the BS> NL. Yes and No. The phone number is listed and the type (name flag of the) mailer. XA for Frontdoor and so forth. Nothing about connection methods as far as protocols are concerned. FV> no indication that my POTS mailer can do emsi, zedzap or other FV> protocols. BS> This is independant of the NL, as session protocols are inherently BS> negotiated at connect. No such info is needed in the NL (for POTS). No need for binkp to be listed either. That protocol can be listed in the "mailer name" as above for POTS mailers. In reality, I don't know why the mailer flags (XA, XX and such) need to be there anyway. I'm sure there is a good reason, but using this same good reason, the IP flag that is proposed could be made into a "mailer" flag. FV> The Nodelist gives information on where to contact Nodes. In the POTS FV> realm, that is the phone number. In the IP world, that is the IP FV> address or domain name. 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> BS> You're making this sound more complex than it needs. This is because BS> you're putting different connection types in the same basket. I will BS> help by understanding that this is NOT about POTS, or POTS session BS> connect methods. Those are well documented and applied, and are not BS> in need of revision. FV> Nodes with multiple phone lines. What if each one wanted to list each FV> line with different protocols? One line does emsi only while others FV> will handle other protocols. BS> Again, this session information is automatically negotiated between BS> the two mailers (not users, btw). Why would one need to differentiate BS> this in the NL? If a particular mailer cannot negotiate a connection, BS> it's not writte within FTS specs. Beg to differ. The only protocol required for POTS by Fidonet is FTS-1 (Xmodem, I believe). If my mailer only does Xmodem, I'm still within requirements. BS> Take a break if you need. :-) FV> Of course, the argument is that with POTS, the protocols are FV> negotiated upon connection. There is a thread in the FTSC_PUBLIC FV> echo that is attempting to work out just such a thing for IP Nodes. BS> Been reading that, and there are some good ideas there... all of which BS> should follow the same methods as POTS... built into the mailer, not BS> the nodelist. I'm pretty sure that some of the IP authors neglected BS> to take into consideration future technologies, just as the FTSC... BS> which is why we are here today. Good possibility. That is what needs to be fixed. 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> I'm not sure this is entirely possible, or even desired. There are BS> too many factors in IP connection and transport. Too much depends BS> on 3rd parties (ISP's, DS's, FW's, etc) to incorporate every sort BS> of possible condition into a mailer(s). We'll still need the NL for BS> a good share of it. We need the Nodelist to give the "phone number" (IP/domain address for IP mailers). That's all that is needed. That is all that was done for POTS mailers in that day and age. FV> Even in the IP mailers, there is no indication that the telnet mailer FV> can do emsi, zedzap or other protocols... but some can. :-) BS> Again, the abaility to determine that should be built into the BS> mailers. If it isn't, it's not compliant, and shouldn't be used. Then BinkD, Irex and several other mailers are not compliant. I can not connect to BinkD or Irex and make a negotiated connection. I have to tell them that the system I'm calling does binkp, ftp or whatever protocol. It's not negotiated. FV> Now, put this into operation. Put the IP or domain in the "name" field FV> of the Nodelist. Standardize an IP flag ("IP" would do) that tells IP FV> mailers to access the finger daemon on the default "Fidonet" port at FV> the IP/domain address listed to get the information on what the Node FV> is capable of and what port(s). BS> Fine.... show me an example entry that can do this... without breaking BS> current software. That's not relevant in this context. There is no software that can currently do this. That is the point. This is a proposal. Just like the proposals for new Nodelist formats. If you mean a Nodelist listing, then; ,6308,web-idiot.d2g.com,McKinney_TX,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064,33600,CM,XA, V34,V42b,IBN The "IBN" flag would be replaced with "IP" (or whatever "standard" is decided on). Current POTS software is not affected and IP software can adapt... some IP software is already adapted except for the use of the "IP" (or whatever) flag. To allow the "system name" and "sysop name" fields to be kept as some desire; ,6308,Collin_County_Station,web-idiot.d2g.com,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064, 33600,CM,XA,V34,V42b,IP If "push comes to shove": ,6308,Collin_County_Station,McKinney_Tx,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064, 33600,CM,XA,V34,V42b,IP:web-idiot.d2g.com FV> To go one step further... It has been pointed out that many IP mailers FV> don't rely on the Fidonet Nodelist anyway. BS> Don't they extract the IP info from the NL to create their proprietary BS> dialing list? If not, who/what tells them? Some do, and some don't. Those that don't must be given the type of protocol to use by configuration of the Sysop. FV> To anyone that wants to chop this reply up and argue each paragraph, BS> BS> I did read your entire message before replying, as I usually do. :) BS> I'll leave the technical arguments to the techies, and try to learn BS> as I read. I don't perport to know a whole lot about the Inet end BS> of this debate... only that what we have isn't working, and will get BS> worse as time and technology progress. I'll agree in part with this. The main problem, I think, is the lack of standards. That, I believe, is what got Fidonet into these problems to begin with. FWIW, I don't think you and I are that far apart on this thing. I hope that with time, we will get closer. 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) .