Text 12958, 67 rader
Skriven 2022-09-18 16:51:26 av Pavel Gulchouck (2:463/68)
  Kommentar till text 12948 av Oli (2:280/464.47)
Ärende: FTS-5004
================
Hi Oli!

16 Sep 22, Oli ==> Pavel Gulchouck:

 Ol>>> I'm not sure ic.ddn would count as a DDN record, because it's not
 Ol>>> in the f*.n*.z*.ddn namespace. TXT records are also not covered by
 Ol>>> FTS-5004.

 PG>> FTS-5004 specifies contents of a DNS zone for being DDN. And according to
 PG>> this FTS no records other than generated from the nodelist should appear
 PG>> in the zone.

 Ol> Is this how DNS is intended to work? The binkp client also does not care
about anything that does not match *.f*.n*.z*.ddn-zone.

Nodelist also contains not only information required for call a node, but some
additional info such as "U,REC" flag or even comments that are not used by
fidonet mailers but may be convenient.

 PG>> Alexey (author of this FTS) told that DNS zone which contains additional
 PG>> information (such as IP addresses of points) is not DDN according by
 PG>> FTS-5004.

 Ol> Interesting. To quote FTS-5004:

 Ol> P - Point Number:
 Ol>     If the system is a point rather than a node then
 Ol>     this is their point number at that node.
 Ol>     Optional. If ".P" is missing then assume 0 (node itself).

 Ol> What is the point in mentioning points in the FTS, when there are no
points in the world nodelist and everything else is forbidden? ;)

Yes, it's interesting.

 PG>> May be, we can change this paragraph to something like "DDN MUST contains
 PG>> all information about IP addresses from the world nodelist and MUST NOT
 PG>> modify this information. DDN CAN contain information from other sources
 PG>> (pointlists, fresh network segments etc) only in addition to information
 PG>> from the world nodelist".

 Ol> Question is: if there were multiple DDN services, would it be okay that
each one could have different additional records from other
 Ol> sources or should every DDN be exactly the same?

Yes.
FTS-5004 specifies strict meaning: all DDN should be equal, so they should not
contain any additional data.
I do not see reasons for this limitation: many existing domains are using as
DDN are not DDN by this definition because contain extra info.

Also, many sysops want to create a service that is better than others, this is
the goal. They create new features for areamgr, extra statistics, robots and
other stuff. Standards specify only minimal requirements, and sysop can extend
it. Strict limitations for areafix commands (which forbid extensions) and other
node features could kill enthusiasm in setup fidonet node. What reasons for
setup one more node which are equal to all existing?
The same is for DDN. If all DDN domains should be completely equal, what
reasons for create and support one more? How can sysop apply their
individuality in this? I think possibility to add some pointlist or other
additional information can make each DDN unique and thereby solve the problem.

              Lucky carrier,
                           Pavel
                           aka  gul@gul.kiev.ua
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
 * Origin: Lucky Carrier BBS (2:463/68)