>> I know, but does that really apply to FTS-1? Does it really deserve to
 >> be called a standard then? Isn't FTS-1 rather "description of current
 >> practice"? And if the current practice has changed, why not change
 >> FTS-1?

 > Are you volunteering?

For changing FTS-1? Probably, if FTSC asked me about it and Randy Bush (the
copyright holder) accepts it.

But I'll only work through the parts about stored messages, packed message
and packet headers. Someone else will have to work through the sections
about session handshake, because I have no experience about such things.

---
 602 610