Text 1523, 143 rader
Skriven 2006-05-31 19:10:54 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
   Kommentar till text 1496 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Situation on R2:50
==========================
Hi Michiel,

 MvdV>  MvdV>> P4 was written with little or no concern for 
 MvdV> the situation outside
 MvdV>  MvdV>> Z1 period. For one it tacitly assumes local calls are free.

 PK> Nope, nowhere does P4 say anything like that at all, that is simply
 PK> YOUR interpretation.

 MvdV> It is not my interpretation, it is my conclusion.

interpretation = conclusion.......;-)

 MvdV> P4 is full of coast issues. There are penalties for 
 MvdV> unduly incurring coast on others, 

Yes, THAT is a cost issue...

 MvdV> there are provisions for nodes routing extraordinary 
 MvdV> amounts of mail, etc, etc.

No, that is NOT just a cost issue, it is also a load issue. Yes, it does have a
cost component but it is not targeted at cost alone.


 MvdV> The NC has an obligation to see that mail delivered 
 MvdV> at the host gets to the nodes in the net. 

Yes, the NC has an obligation to see that mail "gets to the Node", BUT it does
not say that the host HAS to hand deliver it. As long as the NC has correct
mail ROUTING in his configuration, I would be happy to say that the bulk of the
job is done.


 MvdV> What is does *not* say is how it gets from the host to the 
 MvdV> leaf nodes. 

Correct. 


 MvdV> In particular it does not say who bears 
 MvdV> the *cost*.  A glaring omission I say.

Omitted on purpose perhaps?

 MvdV> The only explanation I can come up with is that the 
 MvdV> writers of P4 wrote it from the position that there 
 MvdV> *is* no cost. Which was true for most if not all of 
 MvdV> the US and Canada at the time of writing of P4.


How short sited on your part, I can see several reasons for this. Perhaps the
most obvious one is that they simply let the nodes work this out for
themselves. Shock... Horror... Michiel's clearly defined manual on how Fidonet
works is torn apart...


 PK> In addition, in many nets "local" was a cost 
 PK> call the same as in your part of the world.

 MvdV> There may have been exceptions even in Z1 at the time 
 MvdV> of writing of P4. If that was the case, the writers 
 MvdV> of P4 were not aware of it or they choose to ignore it.

So its not conceivable to you that they DESIGNED it to work that way?


 MvdV>  MvdV>> So it does not matter who calls who when it comes to the
 MvdV>  MvdV>> host's obligation of delivering incoming routed mail.

 PK> Nope, there is no such obligation. A Host must 
 PK> agree to ROUTE INBOUND
 PK> mail, but is not obliged to deliver it.

 MvdV> The intention obviously is to get the mail to its 
 MvdV> final destination 

Not so obvious I am afraid... To me, the intention is to define an arrival
point for inbound mail that then has a good chance of reaching the target
system, and it can reach that arrival point in pretty much the same fashion for
ALL NETS in Fidonet.


 MvdV> and in order to do that *someone* 
 MvdV> has to make a call. The glaring ommission of not 
 MvdV> saying *who* has to make the call is the telltale 
 MvdV> evidence for the tacit assumption of free local calls.

I think you mean that by brilliant design that fact was left out,


 MvdV>  MvdV>> In Z2 local calls are *not* free and so it does matter who calls
 MvdV>  MvdV>> who.

 PK> And in many situations the same applies to other 
 PK> parts of the world, so don't worry, you are not alone......;-)

 MvdV> We have adapted but not without some problems. 
 MvdV> Obviously it is unreasonable to demand that the host 
 MvdV> makes all the calls to deliver the mail. 

But you can't say that, because you are just invalidating your previous
statement on the issue.


 MvdV> That would 
 MvdV> put *all* of the coast on one person. So we went by 
 MvdV> the rule: the leaf nodes have to call their host or 
 MvdV> hub at regular intervals to pick up mail. Prefereably 
 MvdV> every day, but once a week at minimum.

Exactly. Logic prevails...


 MvdV> There *have* been a few cases here in The Netherlands 
 MvdV> were sysops refused to comply. Nodes *have* been 
 MvdV> removed from the nodelist for not picking up mail for 
 MvdV> an extended period of time. (A couple of month).

And rightly so. 

 MvdV> Of course that is history. The few remaining POTS 
 MvdV> only nodes poll at regular intervals and for IP it 
 MvdV> does not matter as the calls *are* free.

No... not free... the cost is paid for access to the service, not the use of
it.

The entire point of Fidonet is to operate as a co-opertive group of people who
work together following a common set of ideas. All of the points you "desire"
above are trying to turn Fidonet into something much more rigid and fixed,
something that Fidonet is not. As a document, overall I think P4 has been
extremely well written, even if it does have 1 or 2 rought edges. The beauty of
P4 is that it does not tie things down too far, it gives Fidonet Members the
chance to work things out themselves, IE it lets them work together in a
co=operative spirit. Your approach is to build walls and stop/go signs, but
sorry, that simply wont work in a co-operative environment.

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


--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: === Maxie BBS.  Ak, NZ +64 9 444-0989 === (3:772/1)