Subj : linked To : Bob Short From : Frank Vest Date : Sun Dec 15 2002 12:37 am On (14 Dec 02) Bob Short wrote to Frank Vest... Hello Bob, 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 FV> BS> Correct... in it's current format. FV> 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. BS> Again... currently... and quite relevant. AAMOF, we find ourselves BS> in a worse position than back then. Up until now, there was room to BS> add provisions for additional modem protocols (which were the only BS> type of changes). We are now at a crossroad, where the NL can no BS> longer be kludged to accomodate all the desired info, and still fall BS> within the limitations of SW that reads/processes it. That is a limit of the software, not the Nodelist format. BS> FV> No need for binkp to be listed either. That protocol can be listed in FV> the "mailer name" as above for POTS mailers. In reality, I don't know FV> why the mailer flags (XA, XX and such) need to be there anyway. I'm FV> sure there is a good reason, but using this same good reason, the IP FV> flag that is proposed could be made into a "mailer" flag. BS> That's a possibility. I think the mailer-specific flag was because BS> not all mailers had all session capacities, and was a means to help BS> newer mailers connect easier, and still maintain backward BS> compatibility. BS> Someone will correct me if I'm wr...wr...wro... well, you know. ;-) I don't know for sure either and I'm figuring that we will both be corrected. :-) FV> 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> I don't undersatnd why you leep bringing session negotiation methods Because protocols are being listed in the current Fidonet Nodelist. They shouldn't be listed there. FV> Beg to differ. The only protocol required for POTS by Fidonet is FTS-1 FV> (Xmodem, I believe). If my mailer only does Xmodem, I'm still within FV> requirements. BS> Now you're complicating things further by bring in another variety BS> of fruit... transfer protocols. Focus on the areas that need to be BS> addressed. This is an area that needs to be addressed. Protocols are being listed in the current Fidonet Nodelist. Binkp is /not/ a mailer. Binkp is a transfer protocol. BinkD is a mailer. There is a difference. 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> If the standards favor DNS, yes. I don't think that's going to BS> fly as the only method of addressing. My money's on ESLNL format, BS> or (Gawd forbid) XML. Well... at least we agree on XML. ;-) Not that I totally disagree on DNS and/or ESLNL either. FV> BS> Again, the abaility to determine that should be built into the FV> BS> mailers. If it isn't, it's not compliant, and shouldn't be used. FV> Then BinkD, Irex and several other mailers are not compliant. I can FV> not connect to BinkD or Irex and make a negotiated connection. I have FV> to tell them that the system I'm calling does binkp, ftp or whatever FV> protocol. It's not negotiated. BS> I don't believe standards have been written for IP session BS> connections. I'd have to read the FTS docs to know for sure. Have BS> minimum connect requirements been set by the FTSC? I don't think so. That is.. er.. was the point of my proposal/idea/thought/whatever you call it. FV> BS> Fine.... show me an example entry that can do this... without breaking FV> BS> current software. FV> That's not relevant in this context. There is no software that can... BS> I think it is, since we're debating on whether the SLNF can continue BS> to be used. You have some interesting examples, but none seem to go BS> futher than (most of) todays technology. The examples give the IP mailer the knowledge that the Node is IP capable and where (domain/IP address) to go on the Internet for a connect. What is left to do is figure out how to determine if the domain/Ip address is for binkp or other protocol. FV> FWIW, I don't think you and I are that far apart on this thing. I hope FV> that with time, we will get closer. BS> Where you and I meet will mean little, since we won't be making the BS> decisions. I just hope that our voices are heard and taken for face BS> value. :) Agreed. 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) .