Text 178, 67 rader
Skriven 2005-04-23 20:53:00 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.10)
    Kommentar till text 175 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: Changing FTS-0001.
==========================
Hi Matt,

 PK> If FTS-001 CAN be updated then this is actually quite easy. As I see
 PK> it, P4 already references FTS-0001, so it would certainly help to keep
 PK> the tie in place if we can.

 MB> I have to disagree in that I view updating FTS-1 versus 
 MB> policy as a kludge.  I also believe that standards, 
 MB> once defined and recognized, should not be redefined 
 MB> unless bugs or critical enhancements are made (at 
 MB> minimum - to avoid confusion).  Policy should not be 
 MB> this hard to change.  

The catch being that Policy so far has proven VERY hard to change. I agree that
once published a "standard" should only be altered to clarify points or correct
errors, however applying the concept of 2 valid transport mechanisms could be a
clarification of the intent of the "standard" when it applies to IP Transports.

 MB> Policy should be written to adopt 
 MB> standards, not standards written to adopt (kludge) 
 MB> policy.

In a perfect world yes, however so far the Fidonet world has not exactly
demonstrated perfection by any meaning of the term........;-) We are already
using the "half closed" eyes of the *C's to keep things running, simply because
Policy does allow that to happen.


 PK> Either that or introduce a 3rd protocol "standard", but then things
 PK> start to get messy (IMHO).

 MB> I figure we could live with two standards on a 
 MB> trasitional basis.  

From my perspective I see pretty much the same thing...

 MB> The way I see it, can't be any 
 MB> worse than what we have now with zero standards.  :-)

I am glad the smiley is there because we DO have standards, but the real
question is how "standard" are those standards, and I think you mean that our
standards are fairly flexible......;-)


 PK> Ack, leave Fidonet as a simple point-to-point transport layer, not a
 PK> traffic cop, city council or other adminstrational nightmare. After
 PK> all this is supposed to be an amateur environment is it not?

 MB> In a sense, it is what we are doing now.  The most 
 MB> routing actually occurs with echomail traffic. 

I guess this depends on where in the world you are located and how well
"serviced" your location is. To me, Echomail isn't really routed at all, its
simply distributed similar to multi-cast IP traffic...

 MB> There is no reason why we should not build around direct 
 MB> communication when direct communication is so readily 
 MB> available.  

That much has become fairly obvious as IP Mailers have become so well
entrenched in Fidonet life.

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


--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)