Text 2230, 61 rader
Skriven 2004-08-01 01:28:08 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
   Kommentar till text 2217 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: http compatability flag
===============================
 >>  MvdV> Actually, mmy personal opinion is that allowing
 >>  MvdV> EONs was a mistake. Mail deliveray depends on
 >>  MvdV> them polling their ISP to pick up the mail and
 >>  MvdV> so they heve the reachability of a point. They
 >>  MvdV> should be treated as such.

 >> the same goes for those ISDN nodes

 MvdV> Not quit. ISDN nodes can be reached by other ISDN nodes.

right... and IONs are reachable by other IONs just as PONs are reachable by
other PONs... however, crossing over any of those "boundaries" requires one to
be multicapable or to use routing...

 >> that started the ISDN stuff in the nodelist way back when...
 >> were they also a mistake?

 MvdV> ISDN only nodes should have been allowed on an experimental
 MvdV> and temporary basis only. As soon as the technology became
 MvdV> available to /also/ support PSTN on the same number, that
 MvdV> should have been made mmandatory. Failing to do so was a
 MvdV> mistake.

seems that maybe that is exactly what was done... it was just a long
experimental period...

 >> point being that once that precedent was set, it can't be undone

 MvdV> Of course it can. Merely mandate that ISDN nodes also support
 MvdV> PSTN. At least during ZMH.

too late for all that... those days are gone and ISDN nodes support both ISDN
and POTS on the same number, these days... the same argument was made way back
then but no one listened then, either...

 >> and now many are complaining about what they allowed
 >> in the first place... the first ISDN nodes were also of the
 >> reachability of a point and should have been treated as
 >> such...

 MvdV> That is a tupid way of dealing with mistakes. When a mistake
 MvdV> is made, the proper thing to do is to correct it and see that
 MvdV> it is NOT repeated.

you cannot correct that which is already done unless you have a timemachine
available and i suspect that you do not ;)

 >> they weren't and now others want to do something
 >> similar for the same reason... to expand the network
 >> capabilities and methods...

 MvdV> Introducing more and more competing ways to do the same
 MvdV> is detrimental to connectivity.

sorry, i don't see that... if i can't get thru via POTS, i may be able to get
thru via one of the internet protocols... if one or more of them are failing to
get thru for whatever reasons, it is possible that another one can get thru...

)\/(ark

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)