Hello Scott.

08 Nov 02 23:27, you wrote to me:

 RR>> Bzzt wrong! Can't have an "FTSC standard listed"
dynamic ION system as
 RR>> a Host.

 SL> a) You two were talking about his RIN,
 SL> b) FTSC standards allegedly document/standardise EXISTING practise, so
 SL> the only things stopping hosts, regions, zones or whatever from being
 SL> ION are Policy and old software.

But there is no standard, FTSC or otherwise, to list an ION as a host,
region, zone or otherwise so Policy has nothing to do with it as it is a case
that does not exist.

I would assume that old software and standards are part of the reason the
FTSC cannot provide a standard for these situations however.

The "existing practise" is in all reality a farce. The FTSC make this claim
and also claim that they do not develop, write or have any technical
affiliation with software - but then also state you should be a software
developer or someone of respected technical standard before even seeking
nomination to the FTSC. They also change the wording where they wish to "best
current practice" and various other phrases.

Now, FTS-5000 states within itself that 5000 and 5001 "defines the format and
content of the nodelist" - no mention there of any existing practice or best
common practice, except to mention that the use of a nodelist is a "current
fidonet practice". It says "defines", that is, it is the
authority when it
comes to the flags and terms used within the nodelist.

That is pretty clear to me then that the FTSC is the authority when it comes
to nodelist flags. It is also supported in this regard by P4 which refers to
the current FTSC doc with regards to connections during ZMH.

People will always get their own meanings one way or another I guess, and
some have difficult perceptions to get around.

Cheers,
                Rick

... Classified tagline. Please enter password: _

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5 - Debian/GNU