(The technical things I'm speaking about here CAN and would be solved. But
I'm trying to point out the major differencies(?) here)


On one side, we have the DNS-system. Keeping the current nodelist as it is,
and using the Internet DNS-system for IP connections, with some extenstions
and glue, to make it work with diffrent transfer protocol, on user selected
ports, and (optionally) with HINFO, to provide system and sysop-name.
Resulting in a solution providing all the information in the current
nodelist, except the changed transport information. A completly robust
solution.


On the other side, we have a a New Nodelist Format. A tag-based format,
containing a list of nodes. And along with each node, a list of 0 or more
transport defitiontions. Service type, and service specific data. For
POTS(?), it will contain Phone number, along with modem-flags. For BinkP,
IP and port. And so on. And in order for current nodes to prevail(?),
public domain conversion tools will be provided, making it impossible for
current nodes to even notice they are using a nodelist based on the new
nodelist. A robust solution as well.


Why do I prefer a New Nodelist Format over the DNS-system?

There is one major thing making me believe a New Nodelist Format would be
the best option for FidoNet. And I think you could call it network
independency. You will be able to add new transfer methods as time passes.
The New Nodelist Format could be used even after the death of the Internet.
A solution that will prevail.



Yes, I am a dreamer. But also a programmer and FidoNet SysOp that will work
hard for the future existance of this lovely phenomena(?).