*** Quoting Michiel van der Vlist from a message to Carol Shenkenberger ***

MvdV>  MvdV>> True up to a point, but that was not the issue at hand. Which
MvdV>  MvdV>> was that listing nodes with 000-0-0-0-0 in field six is not
MvdV>  MvdV>> documented anywhere and therefore is not a standard.

 CS> The situation exists.

MvdV> And people run red lights. Should we now proclaim that a standard as w
MvdV> just because the situation exists?

Now thats a complete non-sequitor.

 CS> Your desire or lack of desire for it is not really relevant.  Nor
 CS> will it be placed to a 'vote of acceptance' for you to decide on.
 CS> The zones themselves will adapt to it or not as they desire.

MvdV> And that is what bothers me. It was not placed to a vote of acceptance
MvdV> by *anyone*. Allowing an all zero "telephone number" was
a decree by *
MvdV> ZC. No one outside that zone was consulted. Not the FTSC, not the othe

Why should the 2 zones most affected, ask the others for permission to fix
a ¨problem and use the existing 000- FTSC documented specs to further
narrow the ¨listings?

000- already existed.  It was flawed to to improper standardization among
other ¨things.  Too much variation for others to account for.  Fixed to one
¨000-0-0-0-0 entry if there is no static and technical reasons prevent
¨-UnPublished- entry.

No one in Z1 was required to contact another zone to fix their internal
lack of ¨continuity on such and then establish one.  It wou;d be like
asking Z1 people ¨if R49 and R50 should combine.  Kinda not their place to
say or not say.

MvdV> zones. No one. It was just pushed through. No consultation, no filteri
MvdV> no feed back, no checks and balances, no nothing. Input from other zon
MvdV> was ignored. As you very well know Z3 has great problems with these ze

Thats been 10 years or more since the 000- standard came out.  You are
still ¨unhappy about it eh?  There is a big difference between 'ignored'
and 'not ¨followed after discussion'.  You seem to have not noted the
discussion ad ¨recall only the end product didnt go as you would have
wished.


MvdV> This sets a dangerous precedent and opens the door to politicians maki
MvdV> more and more technically unsound decisions. What will be next? I don'
MvdV> know, but what I do know is that this is bad for the smooth operation
MvdV> of the network.

Collywobbles.


MvdV> I am more and more leaning towards the opinion that it was a mistake t
MvdV> allow you to maintain your seat in the FTSC when you became a ZC. Ther
MvdV> is an obvious and serious conflict of interest.

You are free to feel such.  Since all ZC's are in there already, I dont
think ¨it makes much differnce.

                                       xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4