Subj : Easier solution?
To   : Charles Cruden
From : Jasen Betts
Date : Wed Jan 01 2003 06:48 pm

Hi Charles.

30-Dec-02 23:15:47, Charles Cruden wrote to All

 CC> Comments / criticisms welcome....

 CC> Why not simply replace the phone number of an IP node with its IP
 CC> address or FQDN?

If you do that it'd no longer be SLF.

 CC> Nodes which have multiple contact addresses simply have multiple
 CC> listings, same as multi-node BBSs had before, and for pretty much the
 CC> same reasons.

multi node listings don't work all that well...

is there _any_ software that understands them, is there even a way to tell
a multnode sysytem from  mutiple BBSs with the same sysop.

 CC> Advantages: - Flags can be applied to individual contact methods.
 CC> Txy, Pvt, FREQ flags, etc. can be varied for each contact address.
 CC> - BBSs keep the relevant information for other fields constant, so
 CC> IONs can list their sysop name and BBS name. - There is no
 CC> predetermined limit on the length of the phone number field, so it
 CC> can accomodate any length of FQDN and any type of IP address, IPv4
 CC> or IPv6. - With the IP# prefix, IP nodes are easily identifiable
 CC> so they can be processed by nodelist compilers, mailers, etc.
 CC> Older mailers / compilers may well reject letters in the number
 CC> out of hand: so much the better, as they won't then be able to
 CC> reach the number anyway. - Keeps nodelist in a recognizable
 CC> format. - Current IP flags don't need to change to be applied
 CC> correctly. - Reasonably extensible: changes the function of the
 CC> phone number field from phone number to contact address.  As new
 CC> contact methods are implemented, a defined place for them already
 CC> exists: all that needs be done is interpret the field correctly.

What I'd change would be to use the same node number on the multiple
listings  (that's one way way software could tell it's the same system)
and it'd make netmail addressing easier.

Possibly leaving the 3rd,4th,5th fields blank if rather the duplicating the
info from the line above too.

 CC> Disadvantages: - Multiple listings for a single node could lead to
 CC> "nodelist stuffing". * At this point, nodelist size is hardly an
 CC> issue.
 CC> Multiple votes in elections is as much an issue with IP
 CC> nodes as it was with multi-line BBSs: i.e. none if the election
 CC> co-ordinator is doing the job properly. - Means reconfiguration of
 CC> current / future IP software.

POTS software too. - but that's already the case. with some of the current
developments. :(

 CC> * No more so than any other
 CC> proposition for extending the nodelist, and this requires less
 CC> change in processing to deal with a new format. - May break older
 CC> software. * The extent of the breakage is debatable.  If it means
 CC> an older mailer can't contact that particular node, so much the
 CC> better: it can't do IP anyway.

What it means is the the older mailer doesn't kniow it cant contact....
 That's the nub of the whole PVT issue, sticking PVT,( or DOWN or HOLD) in the
first field is the only way to tell old mailers that they can't contact a
node.

 CC> If it does letter->number
 CC> translation, that causes more of a problem, but the IP# prefix
 CC> should let the entries be screened out easily enough.

About as easily as 000- does, but it does give a clear indicator making it
easy to use the field for other purposes. (maybe use EM# for email)

 CC> Nodelist segment processing software may complain about illegal
 CC> characters in the field: that would need to be fixed.

Yes, reportedly source is available.

 CC> There are any number of other things that probably should be fixed at
 CC> the same time though.

Dunno how old POTS systems (and otherer existing systems) would handle my
idea of repeated node-numbers though, but they'll have other troubles with
the format anyway.

With the changes i proposed it's very similar to a proposal Mark Lewis
developed early last year.

What about Zone mail hour, is it a requrement for each line, or is there
ging to be a new (oe existing) flag to indicate compliance (or not)

 -=> Bye <=-

---
 * Origin: You think "I'm no fool!" but I am!  - Spike Milligan (3:640/1042)

.