Text 10059, 243 rader
Skriven 2013-08-27 15:13:46 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Kommentar till text 10055 av Ulrich Schroeter (2:244/1120)
Ärende: Internet access - Fidonet Policy thoughts ....
======================================================
BTW: i have fixed the nasty quotes your editor made... my editor does NOT quote
blank lines... no editor should prefix quotes to blank lines... i have also
inserted some (proper) blank lines to separate the quoted sections for
readability...
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Ulrich Schroeter wrote to Mark Lewis:
US>> p4.07 intro
US>>
US>> This document establishes the policy for sysops who are members
US>> of the FidoNet organization of electronic bulletin board systems.
US>>
US>> conclusion: every node listed in nodelist is a sysop with a
US>> running bulletin board system ... aka BBS =:D
ml> it may say that but even back in the 80s there were MO (Mail Only)
ml> systems and they did not run any BBS software... they were either HUBs
ml> of some sort or they were private systems with no BBS or users... in
ml> some cases, they actually did run a BBS and they did have users but
ml> this was not acvertised in the nodelist and contacting them via the
ml> advertised nodelist method(s) resulted in no access to the BBS...
US>> The first step in obtaining a current nodelist is to locate a
US>> FidoNet bulletin board.
ml> no... just a fidonet related system that carries the necessary
ml> software, policy document and nodelist files...
US> you're doubt Policy 4.07 ?!? the fidonet's bible ?-)
US> all sentences are copied and pasted 1:1 out of P407 ,-)
the conclusion is not... that is your writing...
US>> A coordinator is encouraged to operate a public bulletin board
US>> system which is freely available for the purpose of distributing
US>> Policy, FidoNews, and Nodelists to potential new sysops.
ml> "encouraged" is the operative word here...
US> sure ..
right... it does not mandate or require... this is in much the same way that
"make available" does not mean "to deliver" (directly or routed) eg:netmail ;)
US> P407 is full of "BBS" references ... starting with "defining a
US> group of BBS systems forming a net" (in my words)
US> but isn't the topic I want to focus on ... more on later ...
see my previous about the "armchair lawyers" who wrote policy...
[trim]
ml> then again, many don't take current policy in its entirity,
ml> either... just like EP1, they pick and choose the parts that fit
ml> them at the moment...
US> so we may come to the conclusion, that P407 is outdated ... not
US> entirely but in specific sections, can we?
no, that's not what i said... if it were, then why haven't "you guys" rewritten
that piece of trash echo policy thing? it is much worse and handled even
moreso...
US>> In Ward's mail writing, that running a BBS on a POTS line makes
US>> no sense nowadays ... but there is an increase of running Telnet
US>> BBS systems servicing Fido-over-IP, so which makes sense ..
ml> yes... pretty much...
US>> What I'll try to focus on is, that P4.07 now is a 24 years old
US>> policy The "ideas" to group "Bulletin Board Systems" together to
US>> be listed as Fidonet members was based by 1989's technique. Now
US>> the world moved forward, Fidonet still exist ... but the
US>> requirements still did change
ml>
ml> true...
ml>
US>> We have to switch between POTS, ISDN, IP, maybe more comes in the
US>> future?!?
ml>
ml> more is already here and has been for ages... i've yet to see a
ml> totally radio operated system properly listed in the nodelist only by
ml> their radio capabilities... they were forced to have POTS and/or
ml> internet connectivity...
ml>
ml> this is one reason why africa ended up falling apart in the
ml> nodelist... there were other problems as well but fidonet used to
ml> travel via packet radio until some pright bulb figured out how to use
ml> TCP/IP over packet radio and lessen the transfer rates (at 9600) even
ml> more... but at least they did have "live" bidirectional comms...
ml>
US>> We have to deal with probably no POTS BBS system remaining,
why? it is possible that when the world goes to hell in a handcart, POTS will
come back specifically because it works and allows communications... i suspect
that radio will actually be first, though...
are there really any ISDN systems left?
but even so, all that is needed is bridge systems...
ml> wrong... i'm still POTS capable as are many others... specifically
ml> because of what happens when storms and other natural events take out
ml> the connection capability...
US> :D
US> ok ok ok ... 1 POTS system remaining ... :D
US> the real challenge is, to get the problems fixed, that focus
US> fidonet onto one specific physical layer definition
policy is not the place for that... the tech specs are the proper place... have
you looked at FTS-0001? specifically the section (G or H IIRC) that asks for
more input concerning other connection methods??
US> Fidonet's practice has shown, that it can survive if we exclude
US> specific P407 definitions, or make an update on these specific
US> definitions, that allows variations of connection layers ...
US> The challenge is, how to define it in a policy ?
no... the challenge is to get policy updated in the first place... the last
attempt(s) failed...
US> fts documents only documents practice, but the Policy is a
US> document, how we want to interact ...
the FTSC documents more than practise, really... but some have perverted the
actions and definitions over the years :?
US> To ban POTS is the wrong signal ... somewhere later there is a
US> definition, that encourage developers also to implement other
US> protocols, but this isn't the topic we have to focus on
agreed on POTS but i'm not sure what you are trying to say after that...
US> Probably we have to go back to Tom Jennings philosophy
US> (that he gave in an interview) forming a network of
US> independent nodes to have a free independant network
US> collected, defined by the nodelist
US> having in mind, that in todays world we have as many
US> independant physical transport layers to connect
US> nodes together, but not all can support all the layers.
agreed and therein comes more of the pervisions mentioned above...
US> To focus on one layer that is used by the majority doesn't makes
US> sense either ... as you've shown with the packet radio sample ...
US> there are probably much more connectivity layers we don't have
US> heard before that developers will try to use to connect a
US> fidonet system.
africa's system worked well and transferred major quantities of actual
discussion... when they switched to TCPIP over those same 9600 radio links,
there was a huge loss in discussion traffic transferred during any period of
time because the networking protocols took up so much more room...
US> So here we should rethink, how we can bring in P407 in shape with
US> current situation with POTS, IP, Packet radio? and probably other
US> layers and a solution, that allows nodes to communicate with others
US> using a different connection layer that one
US> cannot support
policy points to the tech spec which is where they should be laid out...
US> Probably it doesn't have been picked up, as nobody still has an
US> answer?!?
there may never be until after all the "little kings" are gone...
US> maybe "dynamic inteligent routing" is an answer?
US> maybe "using nearest elevator systems" (similar to Zone gateways
US> solution) is an answer?
bridge systems?
US> There is one definition in Policy to use "local" areas.
US> The reason for this clause is, that nodes do not have to pay
US> unforseen expenses while calling other nodes.
yes... it was also perverted into being a political tool or weapon... it is
still used as such today... witness the recent timmermans related fiasco from
which more information is coming concerning it...
US> If I check the IP network, the whole world is the "local area" as I
US> do not have to pay any extra fees for calling a node in my own city
US> (Frankfurt/Germany) or if I call a node in Australia or if I call a
US> node in the US
yes... unless one is on a metered connection... many still are... xGB per month
or such...
US> One idea in the development of FoIP was to move IP nodes into its
US> own region long time region 55 did run within zone 2
US> Maybe, we have to rethink, to use different Zones for different
US> connection layers?
yeah, that won't work...
US> But what maybe the result if one has a POTS line supported under
US> zone 1 and an IP line supported under zone .. eg 8 ?
US> If I myself have a zone8 aka, I can contact the node directly by
US> his zone8 aka or via POTS if I have a zone2 aka (rethoughts still
US> to continue)
see? it causes unneeded complications...
US> The main question out of these rethinking is, that the requirement
US> that each node is able to contact another node directly can no
US> longer stand as its still current practice, and practice has shown
US> that it still works so therefor its necessary to update this policy
US> paragraph ?
if one cannot contact any other node directly, how is one supposed "route
around the bastards" as has been done in the past and is still being today?
[trim]
US>> A rethinking about CMH is necessary, as it doesn't apply to the
US>> majority of all systems (times of multilines, FoIP with
US>> multitasking, splitting services BinkP / Telnet) indicates that
US>> this paragraph requires an update.
ml> CMH? crash mail hour? continuous mail hour?
US> aeh .. ZMH ... long time not used ... as my systems are CM since
US> starting with fidonet and I do not take care so much on this
US> definition, excepts its configured in the mailers since years, so
US> what ...
i thought you meant ZMH... i just wanted to be sure :)
[trim]
US> the idea is not to ban out any systems .. its the contrary .. bring
US> in more systems with a global definition, that allows systems to
US> communicate :)
yes... i was speaking of my copper pairs as i do my guns... they can have them
when they pry them from my cold dead hands ;)
)\/(ark
* Origin: (1:3634/12)
|