> Many years ago it was proposed in FTS-0001 Revision 16 (Fidonet 

 ac> The text in FTS-0001 is (and all other FTS-xxxx 
 ac> documents are), by definition of a FidoNet Technical 
 ac> Standard, documenting current practice. FTS documents 
 ac> don't propose anything - they are intended to document 
 ac> current practice.  In its first paragraph, FTS-
 ac> 0001.016 explicitly states that, "FidoNet nodes are 
 ac> expected to adopt and implement this standard."

 ac> FSC documents, on the other hand, do indeed contain 
 ac> proposals.  FSCs may or may not be currently 
 ac> implemented, and may or may not be implemented in the 
 ac> future.

While what you say is mostly correct, some treacherous SYSOP might point
out that FTS language like "within 6 months of adoption of this
standard ... shall be implemented" exists.  That implies many nodes
for whom a proposed or recently adopted FTS is not "current
practice".  

It might also be pointed out that FTS-0001 has included statements about
being an incomplete version of itself in need of further work, which by
some readings might be taken to mean that in these days of plentiful
administrative and assorted-Zone aka's, EMSI, or at least YooHoo, might be
considered required, and StoneAge only compliance as most used to read
FTS-0001 a practical impossibility for many nodes.  


Terry


--- Maximus 2.01wb