*** Quoting Felipe T. Dorado from a message to Carol Shenkenberger ***

 FTD>> And, what about that paragraph in the policy about pvt nodes ne
 FTD>> justify their not having a phone number to ring to?  Was it not
 FTD>> Vest who said the policy had been done away with long ago?

 CS> Not really done away with, just that PVT nodes per policy have slightly
 CS> different restrictions and requirements.

FTD> Not really ... Mmmm.

Well, it's come to pass that 'PVT' isnt always 'Private' but in some cases
(one ¨in your net) it's just to satisfy nodelist making tools.

 CS> it's more under question than earlier as it doesnt really 'match'
 CS> what P4 says PVT nodes are for.

FTD> There!
FTD> Personally, being still an obsolete and redundant };)  POTS node, I ha
FTD> found many people complaining about P4, saying it's old and that it pr
FTD> Fido developing ..., but nowhere but here I've seen an intent to chang

FTD> If P4 is so outdated the obvious thing to do is to update it. Other th
FTD> that, *where are the alternative docs?

Building!  Slowly, but there is promise.

 CS> Turns
 CS> out some zones are more restrictive than others on what contitutes
 CS> 'benefit to Fidonet' when assigning a PVT listing.  Z1 seems the least
 CS> restrictive of the 6 zones on that.

FTD> I'm afraid am not aware of the details but thought it was the other wa
(Way).

Z1 generally will issue a PVT number to any sysop who asks if they can do
¨netmail and have worked out a path of communication mutually acceptable to
¨their NC.

FTD> [ It's your editor that cuts the quoted text, right? ]

Yes.  Telegard has 2 options.  One truncates but looks better, the other
makes ¨a horrible 'see saw' quote mess.


FTD> Well, that's what mail networks are for, to communicate, to debate, to
FTD> interchange opinions and arrive at agreements ... to disagree, if it c
FTD> to be ;)

True!  Mostly it's been pleasant learning too!

 CS>> nodelist format with some new tools to generate a nodelist.  That

 CS>> discussions on that have us using a dual node-stub, one traditional
 CS>> and one expanded then merged somehow with a tool by those who want
 CS>> the extended information.

FTD> Ok, if IP is to stay, and it is going to stay, then Fido needs that no
FTD> One list and not several.

Yes.  I agree.  Only one would be generated and passed out and the other
would ¨be derived from it, for those who needed another format.

 CS> the main effort seems to be to integrate the 2 types of sysops
 CS> happily so that both have the essentials they need and bring them
 CS> together as they are in some places of the world.

FTD> That doesn't seem to be that difficult, from this humble point of view

It actually is pretty easy.  The work arounds are very minimal although now
and ¨again one has to place an ION outside their geographical location to
make it ¨work well.  This is usually because the local net doesnt have
anyone with a ¨compatible IP protocol to the ION.  It didnt happen too
often in region13 but ¨there were a few and they all found happy homes
(some outside the region but ¨most inside it).

BTW, that placement above isnt generally allowed in Z2 and tends to 'wierd
out' ¨Z2 folks when it's mentioned.  I'll explain.  When done the 'proper'
Z1 way (no ¨request here for anyone else to take to it, I'm just explaining
a difference ¨between zones) there is no controversy among Z1'ers.  The
proper way is if the ¨node is listed outside their local net but still
inside the same region, it's ¨an issue that only concerns that region.  RC
decides.  Example:  Tony Campbell ¨moved to an area near West Virginia but
had no way to connect to the local net ¨(which was a LD situation anyways).
 Rather than make him join the nearest one ¨that he could connect to, I
told him he was welcome to keep the listing he had ¨with the net that was
fully able to support him.  All still in the same region, ¨so no hassle at
all.

There were 4 or 5 R13 geographical members who found compatible listings
that ¨worked much better for them, in net 229 (region 12).  Those were
granted in a ¨very simple way.  RC13 (me) said 'sure' to NC229 and RC12
with a CC to the Z1C. ¨ The Z1C didnt object so all is well.

A node who lives in R17's area asked for entry to 1:275 (R13) and was
granted ¨this by R17C.  Reason was we had *NIX geeks who could help one
another (he was ¨*NIX) and he'd been a point off 1:275 for 2 years prior
.  He simply asked ¨politely and was granted a listing with a net
that he had well established ¨links to.

While most Z1 listings are geographical, there are some exceptions normally
¨worked out neatly among those involved.  Most 'exceptions' are ION's.

 CS> ION's being the same as POTS nodes.  To me, they are the same and
 CS> only have a problem in that many are not listed with correct
 CS> information in the nodelist so as to be able to contact them.

FTD> Yes, they are the same, save ...   There is this little thing hanging
FTD> out: I cannot mail crash an ion node nor can he ring me  :(   And to m
FTD> that throws quite a few things of Fido to the rubbish  :(   Freedom of
FTD> communication between members of the network through the network itsel
FTD> for one thing.

That is true if you do not have a compatible IP protocol or do not see in
their ¨listing, something you can use.  Many have ITX enties and you can
send a ¨regular email to that same address if you are email capable
.


 CS> Work seems to be progressing on that though and alot of listings have
 CS> been fixed up with the right information now.

FTD> If you happen to spot any irregularities in our segment, please inform
FTD> We'll be most greatful.   I'll relay the bug.

I looked at your own net only and saw only 1 thing.  Pablo Romano has a
speed ¨of 9600.  As an ION, technically he should be listed as 300 baud. 
Other than ¨that it's picture perfect!

                                       xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4