Text 2647, 93 rader
Skriven 2006-12-21 11:08:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 2646 av Carol Shenkenberger (6:757/1)
Ärende: 000- nodelist tactics
=============================
Hello Carol!

On Wednesday December 20 2006 16:33, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> And that is what bothers me. It was not placed to a vote of
 MvdV>> acceptance by *anyone*. Allowing an all zero "telephone number"
 MvdV>> was a decree by * ZC. No one outside that zone was consulted.
 MvdV>> Not the FTSC, not the othe

 CS> Why should the 2 zones most affected, ask the others for permission to
 CS> fix a problem and use the existing 000- FTSC documented specs to
 CS> further narrow the listings?

Because it *affects* the nodes in those other zones. When there is an all zero
number in the nodelist it affects everyone using that nodelist. The effects are
not limited to the zone where the listing appears.

If you do not want the sysops in other zones to use your nodelist segment why
do you offer it for inclusion in the globlly distributed FidoNet nodelist?

In fact why do you wish to be part of the GLOBAL network of FidoNet at all if
you want to run your zone as if it were in complete isolation?

 CS> 000- already existed.  It was flawed to to improper standardization
 CS> among other things.

It is flawed. Period.

 CS> No one in Z1 was required to contact another zone to fix their
 CS> internal lack of continuity on such and then establish one.  It wou;d
 CS> be like asking Z1 people if R49 and R50 should combine.  Kinda not
 CS> their place to say or not say.

Now thats a complete non-sequitor.

 MvdV>> zones. No one. It was just pushed through. No consultation, no
 MvdV>> filtering no feed back, no checks and balances, no nothing. Input
 MvdV>> from other zon was ignored. As you very well know Z3 has great
 MvdV>> problems with these ze

 CS> Thats been 10 years or more since the 000-

That could be about right. Yes, I think it was about ten years ago that Z2
started an experiment with listing IP numbers in field six prefixed with three
zero. AND ABONDONED IT!

It was abandoned because it turned out to be a bad idea. One aspect (but not
the only one) was a problem with the 000 emergency number in Australia as
pointed out by ZC3.

 CS>  standard came out.  You are still unhappy about it eh?

Yes because the reasons for it being a bad idea still apply.

 CS> There is a big difference between 'ignored' and 'not followed after
 CS> discussion'.  You seem to have not noted the discussion ad recall
 CS> only the end product didnt go as you would have wished.

There was never any real interzonal discussion. Z1 pushed the 000- listings
trough after the experiment in Z2 showed its flaws and despite the objections
from other zones.

 MvdV>> This sets a dangerous precedent and opens the door to politicians
 MvdV>> making more and more technically unsound decisions. What will be
 MvdV>> next? I don' know, but what I do know is that this is bad for the
 MvdV>> smooth operation of the network.

 CS> Collywobbles.

Take off your blinders Carol. Politicians taking technically unsound decisions,
is what is happening in FidoNet.

First the 000- numbers, then the all zero numbers and now culminating in your
last invention: totally unreachable hosts and RC's with no contact info
whatsoever. If you can not see that from the POV of an engineer this is a joke,
you should resign as member of the FTSC.

 MvdV>> I am more and more leaning towards the opinion that it was a
 MvdV>> mistake t allow you to maintain your seat in the FTSC when you
 MvdV>> became a ZC. There is an obvious and serious conflict of interest.

 CS> You are free to feel such.  Since all ZC's are in there already, I
 CS> dont think it makes much differnce.

ZC's are invited guests in the FTSC echomail conference. You however are the
only one who is both a ZC and a *member* of the FTSC.

Another experiment that IMNSHO is not to be repeated.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)