Text 8451, 282 rader
Skriven 2017-03-27 10:14:38 av Fred Riccio (1:132/174)
Kommentar till text 8450 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Repost: Proposed changes: FTS-5001.006 - Part 1
=======================================================
27 Mar 17 15:54, Ward Dossche wrote to Fred Riccio:
WD> The message displays grunged on my system, obviously too long.
WD> Can you chop it up pls?
----- FTS-5001.006.Part1 begins -----
**********************************************************************
FTSC FIDONET TECHNICAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE
**********************************************************************
Publication: FTS-5001
>Revision : 6
Title: Nodelist flags and userflags
Author: FTSC Members, Administrator and Honoured Guests
>Date: 2017-03-27
======================================================================
Status of this document
-----------------------
This document is a Fidonet Technical Standard (FTS) - it specifies
the current technical requirements and recommendations for FTN
software developers, coordinators and sysops of the Fidonet network
and other networks using FTN technology.
This document is released to the public domain, and may be used,
copied or modified for any purpose whatever.
Abstract
--------
Nodelist flags extend the basic nodelist format described in
FTS-5000, allowing a node to provide detailed information of its
operation and capabilities.
Contents
--------
1. Introduction
2. Supersessions
3. Purpose
4. Syntax
5. Normal flags
5.1 Operating Condition Flags
5.2 Modem Connection Protocol Flags
5.3 Session Level Error-correction and Compression Flags
5.4 File/Update Request Flags
5.5 Gateway Flag
5.6 Mail Period Flags
5.7 System Online Flags
5.8 ISDN Capability Flags
5.9 Internet Capabilities
5.10 Robot flags
5.11 Flag Redundancies
6. User Flags
6.1 Format Of User Flags
6.2 Mail Oriented User Flags
A. References
B. History
======================================================================
1. Introduction
---------------
The Fidonet Distribution Nodelist (FTS-5000) is a comma-delimited
database, i.e. each node's entry is made up of fields, each of which
has a specific purpose.
While this is a fine system for holding information that all nodes
must have (e.g. node number, sysop name, etc.) it is not well suited
for data that varies wildly from system to system. To accommodate
such data, the flag fields are defined as self-describing and
non-position dependent fields.
This document is a registry of all commonly used flags in Fidonet,
and companion to FTS-5000 in describing the Distribution Nodelist.
2. Supersessions
----------------
This document supersedes and replaces FTS-0005, FSC-0009, FSC-0040,
FSC-0062, FSC-0075 and FSC-0091.
3. Purpose
----------
As with FTS-5000, this document is intended for both developers and
nodelist maintainers to avoid duplication and conflicts. Normal
sysops would also do well to have at least cursory knowledge of the
nodelist's capabilities so they may provide their Coordinators with
all the pertinent detail of their systems.
This document should be considered a guide, and not the final word
on what are and aren't valid flags. There will obviously be an
unavoidable lag between the introduction of new flags and their
inclusion in this document, as well as experimental flags that will
come and go with no official documentation at all.
4. Syntax
---------
Most flags are simple tokens that each occupy a single field and by
their presence or absence in the nodelist, indicate the presence or
absence of a certain feature in the node.
A more recent style is to subdivide the flag field, usually with a
colon (3Ah) to allow for variable data under a common flag. These
are essentially named fields, consisting of the flag itself and its
payload as one or more subfields.
Unless otherwise stated, flags are not position or order dependent,
with the exception that User Flags must follow Normal Flags.
5. Normal flags
---------------
5.1. Operating Condition Flags
------------------------------
Flag Meaning
CM Node accepts mail 24 hours a day using all listed methods
ICM Node accepts mail 24 hours a day using all listed TCP/IP
methods, but not all of the other listed methods (such as
PSTN/ISDN) and therefore cannot be CM. See FRL-1017.
MO Node does not accept human callers
LO Node accepts calls Only from Listed FidoNet addresses
MN Compressed mail packets will not be processed automatically
5.2. Modem Connection Protocol Flags
------------------------------------
The following flags define modem connection protocols supported.
Please also read section 5.11 on flag redundancies.
ITU-T (formerly CCITT) Protocols:
Flag Meaning
V22 ITU-T V.22 1.200 bps full duplex
V29 ITU-T V.29 9.600 bps half duplex
V32 ITU-T V.32 9.600 bps full duplex
V32b ITU-T V.32bis 14.400 bps full duplex
V34 ITU-T V.34 33.600 bps full duplex *
V90C ITU-T V.90 Client 56.000 bps asymmetric
V90S ITU-T V.90 Server 56.000 bps asymmetric
Industry standard protocols:
Flag Meaning
V32T V.32 Terbo 21.600 bps full duplex *
VFC V.Fast Class 28.800 bps full duplex
Proprietary Protocols:
Flag Meaning
HST USR Courier HST 9.600 bps asymmetric
H14 USR Courier HST 14.400 bps asymmetric
H16 USR Courier HST 16.800 bps asymmetric
X2C US Robotics x2 client 56.000 bps asymmetric
X2S US Robotics x2 server 56.000 bps asymmetric
ZYX Zyxel 16.800 bps
Z19 Zyxel 19,200 bps
H96 Hayes V9600 9.600 bps
PEP Packet Ensemble Protocol
CSP Compucom Speedmodem
* NOTE: maximum possible speed; actual maximum will vary
depending on implementation.
5.3. Session Level Error-correction and Compression Flags
---------------------------------------------------------
The following flags define type of error correction and/or data
compression available. A separate error correction flag should not
be used when the error correction type can be determined by the
modem flag. See section I for details.
Flag Meaning
MNP Microcom Networking Protocol error correction
of type MNP1 to MNP4
V42 ITU-T V.42: LAP-M error correction with fallback
to MNP 1-4
V42b ITU-T V.42bis: LAP-M error correction and
compression with fallback to MNP 1-5
5.4. File/Update Request Flags
------------------------------
The following table shows the flags indicating various types of
file/update requests supported:
+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Bark | WaZOO |
| |---------------------|---------------------|
| | File | Update | File | Update |
| Flag | Requests | Requests | Requests | Requests |
|------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| XA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| XB | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| XC | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| XP | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| XR | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| XW | No | No | Yes | No |
| XX | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| none | No | No | No | No |
+--------------------------------------------------+
The following software is qualified to use the appropriate file
request flag according to information provided by developers:
+-----------------------------------+
| Flag Software Package |
|-----------------------------------|
| XA Frontdoor 1.99b and lower |
| Frontdoor 2.01 and higher |
| Dutchie 2.90c |
| Binkleyterm 2.1 and higher |
| D'Bridge 1.2 and lower |
| Melmail |
| TIMS |
| ifcico |
| mbcico 0.60.0 and higher|
| (via modem) |
|-----------------------------------|
| XB Binkleyterm 2.0 |
| Dutchie 2.90b |
|-----------------------------------|
| XC Opus 1.1 |
|-----------------------------------|
| XP Seadog |
|-----------------------------------|
| XR Opus 1.03 |
| Platinum Xpress |
|-----------------------------------|
| XW Fido 12N and higher |
| Tabby |
| TrapDoor No update processor|
| binkd w/SRIF FREQ processor |
|-----------------------------------|
| XX Argus 2.00 and higher |
| D'Bridge 1.30 and higher |
| Frontdoor 1.99c/2.00 |
| InterMail 2.01 |
| McMail 1.00 |
| T-Mail |
| TrapDoor - Update Processor |
| mbcico 0.60.0 and higher|
| (via IP) |
|-----------------------------------|
| None QMM |
+-----------------------------------+
----- FTS-5001.006.Part1 ends -----
--- Msged/NT 6.0.1
* Origin: Somewhere in New Hampshire's White Mountains (1:132/174)
|