Subj : New Format  vs  DNS
To   : Jasen Betts
From : Peter Knapper
Date : Tue Jul 23 2002 09:54 pm

Hi Jasen,

 PK> We MUST in all cases remain completely compatible 
 PK> with current practise

 JB> I'd prefer something that works better.

So create something NEW that works alongside the old stuff without breaking 
it...

 PK> While I can also see your rationale here, I still think there are
 PK> better ways of doing this. I don't believe we need a new nodelist
 PK> format, simply because I do NOT believe we need a NEW Nodelist.

 JB> So this DNS thing you're pushing is not a new nodelist?

In itself, definately not, because DNS is a distributed Database. I suppose 
someone in Fidonet could run a DNS parser across the Fidonet domain and create 
a file that could then be "merged" with the POTS Nodelist entries to create the 

"enhanced" Nodelist, but I question if that's really necessary. 

Ok, each ZC could generate the IP segment for their Zone and then attach that 
to the regular nodelist that they issue. However you have to remember what the 
nodelist is for, its so a MACHINE can contact other MACHINES, its not supposed 
to be for human consumption. Yes, humans can read it and use it, but that is 
not its primary purpose. And then the ONLY purpose such a modified Nodelist 
would have is to validate the Nodes that belong to Fidonet. Gone is its 
original purpose of helping people to contact each other.

No... I am not sure we need something exactly like the Nodelist, at least not 
for the current purpose of it...

 JB> We need a new nodelist format because the old one is full and that's
 JB> stifling development.

As has been stated many times, the current Nodelist is far from full, its main 
problem is that its design does not allow it to be used for the new 
communications needs of Fidonet.

 PK> What I think we really need in addition to the connectivity issues
 PK> for IP nodes (such as using DNS for contact info), is a Fidonet
 PK> MEMBERSHIP list, IE something that tells a Fidonet node what
 PK> "other" Fidonet nodes actually exist. It seems (to me) that this
 PK> is what people are really talking about.

 JB> According to P4 the nodelist is the membership list.

For the current environment yes, but maybe that should change...

 PK> I see the simplest "solution" for the Nodelist, is to provide a
 PK> method for "listing" IP nodes, that does not break current POTS
 PK> nodes.

 JB> List them as PVT... nothing radical there.

Exactly, thats how I think it could work, PVT node with a flag pointing to the 
DNS entry. Keep it very very simple. However we also need that "new" thing to 
support the IP nodes and then figure out how to tie the 2 halves back together 
in a way that allows the halves to talk to each other...

Cheers............pk.

--- Maximus/2 3.01
 # Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)
 * Origin: Baddog BBS (1:218/903)

.