REPLY: 2:280/5555 4587ee70
 MSGID: 6:757/1 b5d17371
 PID: Telegard 3.09.g2-sp4
 TID: GE 1.2
*** Quoting Michiel van der Vlist from a message to Carol Shenkenberger ***

MvdV>  MvdV>> True up to a point, but that was not the issue at hand. Which
MvdV>  MvdV>> was that listing nodes with 000-0-0-0-0 in field six is not
MvdV>  MvdV>> documented anywhere and therefore is not a standard.

 CS> The situation exists.

MvdV> And people run red lights. Should we now proclaim that a standard as w
MvdV> just because the situation exists?

Now thats a complete non-sequitor.

 CS> Your desire or lack of desire for it is not really relevant.  Nor
 CS> will it be placed to a 'vote of acceptance' for you to decide on.
 CS> The zones themselves will adapt to it or not as they desire.

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

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

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

things.  Too much variation for others to account for.  Fixed to one 
000-0-0-0-0 entry if there is no static and technical reasons prevent 
-UnPublished- entry.

No one in Z1 was required to contact another zone to fix their internal lack of

continuity on such and then establish one.  It wou;d be like asking Z1 people 
if R49 and R50 should combine.  Kinda not their place to say or not say.

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

Thats been 10 years or more since the 000- standard came out.  You are still 
unhappy about it eh?  There is a big difference between 'ignored' and 'not 
followed after discussion'.  You seem to have not noted the discussion ad 
recall only the end product didnt go as you would have wished.


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

Collywobbles.


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

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

                                       xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4