Text 10078, 43 rader
Skriven 2013-08-28 09:06:39 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
  Kommentar till text 10070 av Nicholas Boel (21216.fidonews)
Ärende: Internet access - Fidonet Policy thoughts ....
======================================================
 On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Nicholas Boel wrote to Ulrich Schroeter:

 US> One requirement that can be defined:
 US> that each node is able to connect another node at the same
 US> physical layer (but there may exist several different physical 
 US> layers.....) The answer to transport informations between 
 US> different layers maybe to use "elevator" systems or leave it open 
 US> to developers ... the new definition "elevator systems" may give 
 US> room, to operate via zone gates, or define new protocols via FTS 
 US> that allows inteligent routing between different physical layers 
 US> via "elevator systems"

 NB> Wow. This was probably the best explanation I've ever heard. Thank
 NB> you, Ulrich! I can't fathom how much I agree with your entire post
 NB> here. :) 

it really isn't any different than what we have now...

 NB> It would also almost seem like it would more define RCs, NCs, and
 NB> the like. If an RC can't handle one physical layer, then what? Are
 NB> you forced to do only what they can do?

either that for direct comms or you use a bridge (elevator) system for routed
comms... also, don't make the mistake of thinking that the bridge systems are
*Cs or that they should be... we already wrested control of mail distribution
away from them one time... we're not really wanting to do that again...

 NB> This sounds like it would be a complete restructure of Fidonet as
 NB> it sits currently. So good luck getting everyone to agree. :)

i don't see any restructuring, really... just some documentation changes,
possibly... but then, which document(s)?

but as you say, while others may agree, it likely won't go anywhere further...
nothing against the OP but that's just what happens... and there's also the
consideration of how to put the document(s) in place... to just bung it in
place and say "there's a new policy" ain't gonna work... and changing the base
technical standard is just as hard because it is copyrighted and the copyright
holder refuses to let it go for various reasons...

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)