> Well, it is technical - due to the fact that some platforms
 > cannot support higher than FTS1. The politics only dictate
 > whether or not we continue to support them :(

I disagree. Why would it be so hard to support FTS-6 (or even EMSI) for
these platforms? In FTS-6, there's SEAlink. Nothing says that SEAlink
_must_ have a NN-block window, it has a block zero with file information,
and block numbers and their complements accompany ACKs and NAKs.

Zmodem might be a hill too steep for these platforms, but EMSI with
"SLK" (SEAlink) oughta work just fine. CRC code doesn't have to
be table driven (if code/data space is an issue).

 > Yes, in N.A. for the most part, ISDN=It Still Does Nothing.

Right, but the FTS-1 requirement is Fido-wide, not specific to Z1.

 > Also, you realize, there are nodelist flags at least for
 > this, right? If we had a nodelist flag specifying FTS1 only,
 > some problems would be cleared up, since you wouldn't try to
 > call them if you couldn't.

But there are no approved ISDN flags (which I can't quite understand),
there are many combinations of "ISDN" flags. V120,
"U,ISDNC", "ISDNC", "ISDN", etc. etc.

And, in the case of ISDN, the situation isn't quite the same. An ISDN node
knows that it can only call other nodes with ISDNxxx in their nodelist
entry. An FTS1-only capable node wouldn't know if the system it's trying to
call is FTS-1 capable, unless you turn it around and have a
"NOTFTS1" (or something) flag. That should take care of it.

 > Well, to be honest, this is true, but this is something that's
 > just not under our control.

Nor is a node that's behaving in a "excessively annoying manner".
What I mean is that if the line is to be drawn, it should be drawn the same
in all cases. If you cannot communicate, you cannot participate - but that
isn't the case at present.

 > Well, this is choice really, and again I don't see the problem
 > hanging around for long, due to firmware upgrades and V.34.

And the majority of nodes may not have been affected by the problem. But
I'm sure there are those unlucky enough to run software that has spent
hours trying to connect their new Neato-Whizz-Bang-VFC modem to another
"VFC" modem and gotten nothing but failed handshakes - and then
noticed it the next time the individual happen to browse the logs (or the
phone bill arrives).

 >> In the ISDN case, who's breaking policy? The ISDN nodes or
 >> the analog nodes?

 > Tough call :).

No sh*t :-)

---