Hola Carol  :)

Friday December 06 2002 19:46, Carol Shenkenberger decˇa a Felipe T. Dorado:

 FTD>>> If you happen to have a list of things your people would like t
 FTD>>> of the current policy or the main points or guidelines of a new

 CS>> Same here.  I'd especially want to help remove anything that caused

 FTD>> I go along with that.

 CS> Me too!  I do not always know as much as I think and you made me think!
 CS> Keep on and forgive me if I ask some things that to you seem silly.  I'm
 CS> used to a different technology base and may not know the problems of other
 CS> areas as well as I though once I ask questions. Fair enough?

Sure :)   Some of my statements may also sound a little weird to people
much more skilled in telecommunications than I am.

 CS>> 2 things I'd like to see.

 CS>> a) ION's publicly acknowledged as having the same rights as POTS nodes
 CS>> even if they look for technical nodelist tool reasons like PVT systems
 CS>> at this time.

 FTD>> Mmmm. Two things, no, tree:
 FTD>> 1 That a way is found of contacting them from a pots line and mailer w
 FTD>> having to embark on using foreign tecnology.
 FTD>> 2 That a nodelist comprises all nodes in Fido, and not several lists.
 FTD>> 3 That a compromise that those nodes will serve Fido routing and will
 FTD>> not disappear overnight without saying a word.

 CS> I do know this may be hard in Z4/5 as they have lesser IP connectivity but
 CS> was not aware it would be an issue in Spain.

And it really isn't. Out of the 20-odd surviving SysOps here about half are
IP only. I could be one of them also. I even have cable right here barely a
yard away but I simply do not pay the fee for it to carry data.
I am the odd man out in my region still defending POTS so it doesn't get
thrown away so fast.

 CS> In other zones, we have so many 'bridge nodes' that is is not an
 CS> issue.  A 'bridge' if you have not run into that term is one who
 CS> is both POTS and IP capable.  They may not have any IP flags at
 CS> all, but they can reach the others who are ION.

Yes, thank you. Several of those bridges/gates over here. That's no problem.

 CS> There is no direct connection between POTS and IP nodes if the
 CS> POTS and IP node do not share a common protocol.  Correct.

I know it is an impossible. Only bridges and gating can serve, I know. That
prevents direct node contact which is the reason I mentioned it.

 CS> I also agree we need a combined list.  I'll add that we need one
 CS> all can use.  I can accept a tool used to filter it to what a
 CS> site uses or needs.

To tell yopu the truth I only know of other lists because of the references
in posts. It seems rather absurd to me that such lists exist. A splitting
Fido is the last thing we need.

 CS> I do not know how to adapt around the 'disappearing node' but
 CS> we've always had that.

Yes, and I guess we will always have that. But it so happens that a
dedicated POTS line has served quite well towards stability of the nodes in
the past. It seems to me that IONs are much easier to come and, so, much
easier to go than pots'.

 CS>> b) Region level voting acknowledged as valid (Method left to
 CS>> region including the right to deligate that to the RC/REC if
 CS>> they so desire).
 CS>> Regional policies to be used and on file with their ZC.  Zc has

 FTD>> I am all for this one though.

 CS> Yes, the glory is it also follows human instincts as well as P4 reasonably
 CS> well.

It is the logical thing to do.

 FTD>> That inet will be included in Fido Policy as part of the tools we use?
 FTD>> I have no doubt about that. I don't particularly like it but that is w
 FTD>> it will eventually happen. I think that should be done with respect fo
 FTD>> the network we have today.

 CS> I agree with respect to what we have now.  We do not need to
 CS> abuse one
 CS> another at all or make one set feel 'lesser' than the other.  Some people
 CS> (not you) seem to have a problem with this concept.

POTS nodes are becoming quite rapidly the little sister or poor brother of
Fido. They/we'll be "retro" in very little time. Is there really
a need to crucify them as well?
And the same goes for IONs, what the heck.
But more attention should be given to the fact that IP _adds_ instead of
looking at it as the sole solution for Fido's future. I don't really see
any problem in keeping POTS nodes and incorporating IP-onlys. Save for the
technical part, of which I know little, and the insistance in
rights-acquiring, which I don't really understand.
Gosh, let them participate in policy changing and we do it in a civilised
way, uh?  No need to fight over something that's going to happen anyway:
dissapearance of POTs nodes. Sooner or later it will happen. But not as
yet.

 FTD>> Thank you, Carol, for putting your proposals neatly and
 FTD>> concisely.
 FTD>> I would like to see more like them instead of having to struggle throu
 FTD>> endless threads of arguments on who is the most disrespectful with the
 FTD>> other (reason why I don't follow certain echoes anymore).

 CS> Grin, glad to help!  I know not all, nor do I pretend to.  I however enjoy
 CS> learning how we each feel.

Yeap, that's the glory of mail, and of Fido  :)

Felipe  :)

--- Fastecho 1.45/GED/Fd 2.12