Text 276, 134 rader
Skriven 2004-08-02 06:10:51 av FidoNews Robot (2:2/2.0)
Ärende: FidoNews 21:31 [03/06]: General Articles
================================================
=================================================================
                        GENERAL ARTICLES
=================================================================

                To fidonet.net or not to fidonet.net?
                           From Frank Vest
                            1:124/6308(.1)


 For some time, there has been a debate about the "fidonet.net" method
of listing or contacting Fidonet Nodes and other methods. I suppose
one would have to be following the thread in the "IC" echo to fully
understand the below conversation, but let's go for it anyway. :)

 The conversation was between Carol Shenkenberger and Björn Felten.
The below is two replies that I made to Björn. The first shows the
questions that I asked in reply to Björn's comments. The second is
where I answered his question about "prepping" for an article". :)


CONVERSATION 1:

 BF>    This is NOT about having a DNS listing, period. This is about
 BF> using the only safe way for a binkp mailer to AUTOMATICALLY (as
 BF> opposed to manual cut&paste or similar intervention) connect to
 BF> another binkp BF> mailer, that has never been connected to
 BF> before.

How is is safe?
How is it more automatic than listing the IP number or domain in the
Nodelist?

 BF>    This is about using a connectivity method, that obsoletes all
 BF> the different kludges and work-arounds, always ending up bloating
 BF> the real nodelist with more or less ego-boasting garbage.

What kludges and work arounds?
What ego boosting garbage?

CONVERSATION 2:

 FV> How is is safe?

 FV> How is it more automatic than listing the IP number or domain in
 FV> the  Nodelist?

 FV> What kludges and work arounds?
 FV> What ego boosting garbage?

 BF>    Are you prepping me for a Snooze article? :)

Not at all. I suppose I could write one, but I'm not really inclined
to do so. Of course, if you wish to write something, go for it. :)

Starting from the top:

How is it safe?:

 "fidonet.net" is no more safe than any other method. I think this
comes down to the fact that there is no standard place in the SLF
Nodelist for IP information.

How is it more automatic than listing the IP number or domain in the
Nodelist?:

 Since some IP/FTN mailers decided to default to "fidonet.net" as the
domain, it appears that automation would be more automatic. On the
other hand, Fidonet is defined by the Nodelist and all connection
information should be in the Nodelist. To assume that all IP Nodes can
be contacted via "fidonet.net" is not in keeping with the "defined by
the Nodelist" concept. What if one Zone decides to use "fidonet.net"
and some other Zone decides to use a different "default" domain? Who
decides what the default domain is? Who controls/owns the default
domain? Who pays for the default domain?

 I've brought up the above to some extent before. The problem is not
so much with the Nodelist as the method of listing IP information in
the Nodelist.

What Kludges and work arounds?:

 The only kludge that I see is the "PVT/-Unpublished-" problem. The
"I" flags will work if they are used in some standard way. The domain
or IP can go in the "system_name" field.

 Put the IP number or domain in the "system_name" field. Put the port
number, if not standard, after the "I" flag. "Fix" the requirement of
having PVT with -Unpublished-. Even with the "PVT/-Unpublished-"
requirement, putting the IP or domain in the "system_name" field and
the port after the "I" flag(s) would "clean up" the Nodelist
considerably.

What ego boosting garbage?:

 I can only assume this to mean the "system_name" field. The Sysop
name, location and other information is needed in the Nodelist to
identify the person who operates the Node and how to contact/connect
to him/her.

Further comments:

 The current problem with the Fidonet Nodelist is that there is no
standard method of listing IP Nodes. The IP number might be found in
the phone field, unless there is a real phone number there. The domain
might be after the "I" flag. There might even be a port number after
the domain after the "I" flag. The domain might be in the
"system_name" field. The IP number might be in the "system_name"
field, or after the "I" flag. Then again, one might find the IP number
and/or domain in all of the above mentioned places.

 The above wasn't a problem when the SLF was first developed. There
were no IP numbers or domains to deal with. The SLF was worked out by
Tom Jennings and some "Good Old Boy" friends. The software authors
made money on the software that used the Nodelist and, therefore,
wanted things to work. They followed the "standard" set forth because
it was in their best business interest.

 Fidonet needs the ZCC to get together and decide which/what method is
to be used. The decision needs to be written in a standard and the
FTSC needs to publish that standard. Until that happens, Fidonet will
continue to be a disjointed mess.

 Now, if you, or someone, wants to write an article, go for it. If the
above is quoted in the article, quote it all.


Regards,
Frank


-----------------------------------------------------------------

--- Azure/NewsPrep 3.0
 * Origin: Home of the Fidonews (2:2/2.0)