Text 559, 34 rader
Skriven 2006-06-06 21:08:54 av Scott Little (3:712/848)
    Kommentar till text 558 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.10)
Ärende: FSC
===========
 [ 06 Jun 06 20:09, Peter Knapper wrote to Alex Shakhaylo ]


 PK> for the FTSC, with one very big difference, the expiry date, which
 PK> makes them suddenly stop being a standard???

IIRC, Carol asked the same question when the FTSC was renewed a few years back.
 All recent documents are issued with a "Review" field in place of the "Expiry"
field to avoid any misunderstandings.

 PK> Anyway, my feeling is that Fidonet is well past the point of setting
 PK> standards via an FTSC

Did the FTSC ever set standards?

Standards follow actual implementations and usage, not ivory tower
declarations.  The only documents to get promoted to FTS are those that have
been determined to be "common practise" thus already standards.

 PK> anything that is "published" should be be similar to an internet RFC,
 PK> in other words the document should really be nothing more than a
 PK> discussion paper.

One of the primary functions of the FTSC is to aid developers and
compatibility.  Theoretically, if you wanted to implement Fidonet from scratch,
you'd not need anything more than the FTS series.  The FSP, FTS and FRL series
are more informative than simply lumping everything into the one pool, RFC
style.


-- Scott Little  [fidonet#3:712/848 / sysgod@sysgod.org]

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20060326
 * Origin: Cyberia: 100% Grade "A" mansteak baby. (3:712/848)