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)

.